John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, nobody needs to speak for either the Senator from Kentucky or the Senator from South Carolina. They have done it for many years here, and they are as capable as anybody. But I would like to say that I understand the difficulties in which the majority leader finds himself. He gets approached by people on both sides, from all sides, and it is difficult to bring this piece to the floor. But there is a process by which we have been working and by which, I think, most of us understood that we were sort of teeing this legislation up for the floor. I think it has been an exceptional process. I applaud the Senator from Arizona, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for the way in which he has tried to meld those forces over the course of the last months. The truth is that the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from South Carolina, who is the ranking member and who could have stood in the way, significantly along the way here, of progress, has moved along the way to get us to where we are with an understanding of where he stood with respect to critical issues. Everybody here understands how you approach any of these negotiations. There is a certain amount that you are willing to give up with an understanding of what you are getting and that you are where you are. Through all of these meetings, through all of the interventions to this point in time, neither the Senator from South Carolina nor I have been part of those meetings, nor any of my colleagues have had any knowledge whatsoever that this ``rule'' might be invoked. They have had no opportunity to think about an alternative process to work with their colleagues, or otherwise. I simply say that suddenly at 4 o'clock in the afternoon the entire ground has shifted. That is within the rules. The Senator from Kentucky has acknowledged that. I acknowledge that. That may be one of the very difficult decisions that the majority leader has to make. But if fairness is what we are really looking for here, it seems to me that maybe there is a way to find some alternative method of including the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from South Carolina and the chairman of the Agriculture Committee to find out how you might resolve this other than to do it in this sort of fairly unilateral fashion. I don't know if that is possible. But I would certainly say that in the context of the way in which the negotiations have been conducted to reach this point that also strikes me as being fair.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senators Dodd and Gramm for their work in bringing this legislation before us today. I support this effort to reestablish the reasonable limitations the Congress established in 1995 with respect to class action lawsuits alleging the commission of securities fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a covered security. This was a warranted and important step, and the efforts to effectively nullify it by bringing such suits in state courts must be halted, which this legislation does by requiring all class action suits of this type be brought in federal courts. While fraudulent actions by a company's management can destroy an individual investor's retirement nest egg, a frivolous suit filed against a start-up high-technology company can stop that business dead in its tracks. We need to protect the rights and interests of both shareholders and entrepreneurs. Although no law can do that perfectly, I believe this legislation will bring us as close as possible to the correct balance. The high technology sector has played an important part in the economic development of Massachusetts and the nation. This sector, which has been the most frequent target of securities strike suits, is critical to our future economic growth and the creation of highly skilled, family-wage jobs. Frivolous strike suits have had a chilling effect on start-up high-technology, biotechnology, and other growth businesses. After the growth of frivolous strike suits during the first part of this decade, passage of the Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995 was successful to a large degree in limiting strike suits in federal court. But litigants are too often circumvented its impediments to frivolous lawsuits by bringing actions in state court, reinvigorating the threat to emerging companies. The Securities Litigation Reform Act's limits on discovery fishing expeditions, until a court rules on the merits of a case, does not apply in state court, and plaintiffs have begun to file state lawsuits in order to gain access to important company information--too often this has permitted ``fishing expeditions'' into corporate files to try to find evidence of fraud. Actions such as these frustrate the intent of the reform law. Moving these cases to federal court should eliminate these meritless ``fishing expeditions.'' Strike suits in state courts also have had a chilling effect on the number of companies which have released forward-looking statements on earnings. Companies fear that if the information on earnings that they release proves to be inaccurate, they will be held liable in state court. The lack of accurate, forward-looking information on companies makes it more difficult for investors to make informed judgments about their future. Reducing suits to those that can meet federal court standards should give these companies the confidence to release voluntarily their future earnings estimates, which should increase the efficiency of capital and reduce future stock volatility in our markets. Finally, the Securities Litigation Reform Act included important provisions which restrict the use of ``professional plaintiffs,'' eliminate bounty payments, limit attorneys' fees, assure class action lawsuit members receive notice of settlement terms, and restrict secret agreements under seal. None of these protections is available for class action suits brought in state courts. Moving all class action securities lawsuits to federal court should lead to the creation of a more favorable, stable climate for businesses while preserving important remedial means for shareholders with legitimate complaints about inappropriate corporate activities. Investors should gain better information about the marketplace. A diminished threat of abusive strike suits will strengthen the ability of businesses to provide investors with more information. I believe this helps to restore the balance we seek on behalf of all Americans, both those who are investors and those who are entrepreneurs and managers. I will support its passage and complement those who have brought it to passage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the early hours yesterday morning on the New Mexican desert, there was an event that brought home in a very practical way one of the series of considered arguments made against the legislation the Senate is considering this morning. The Army Missile Command, the prime contractor, and dozens of subcontractors had been painstakingly preparing for the fifth intercept test of the Theater High Altitude Area Defense, or THAAD, theater missile defense system. No effort was spared in these preparations, because program officials and Department of Defense officials acknowledged openly that this would be widely viewed as a ``make or break'' test for the system following its unfortunate string of previous intercept failures. To the dismay of all involved, this fifth test, too, was a failure. Mr. President, we nominally are debating a different matter this morning. The bill before the Senate involves an immediate decision to abandon the so-called ``3 plus 3'' strategy for national missile defense and establish a policy to move as rapidly as possible not only to develop an effective national missile defense technology, but to deploy such a system at the earliest possible time. But the White Sands test yesterday morning should be hoisting another red flag for the Senate to consider as we vote on this bill. I take a back seat to no one in my support for development of effective missile defense technology. I have a strong record of support for developing and fielding theater missile defense systems, for the protection of our ground forces, our naval forces, and other national interests in theater. We know--and we hear and read on virtually a daily basis--of the efforts underway in a number of nations to develop ever more capable short range ballistic missiles capable of carrying weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, chemical, or biological. Missiles of this type have been used previously. This threat is real, it is immediate, and it is substantial. But this legislation, Mr. President, does not address either of these key policy matters. We have in place an established policy to develop and field as rapidly as possible theater missile defense systems. The Administration and the Congress have increased the funding for this effort again and again. We have in place an established policy to develop and perfect as rapidly as possible the technology that would be necessary for a national missile defense system, and to bring that effort to a stage where, in three years from a green light, it could be fielded and operational. As has occurred not infrequently in the course of human history, our aspirations are getting ahead of our scientific expertise and our ability to manipulate the laws of physics to accomplish our objectives. Some may mistakenly believe, Mr. President, that developing effective anti-missile technology is a simple proposition, and that wishing for it is to obtain it. Unfortunately that is not the case. To grossly oversimplify this, this is a task of spotting a warhead, or fragments of a warhead, hundreds if not thousands of miles away, and while it moves at several thousand miles per hour, determining which is the real target, launching another missile in its direction, guiding that missile also traveling at hypersonic speed to a collision point in the great expanse just inside or outside of the upper reaches of the earth's atmosphere, and precisely maneuvering the interceptor to collide with the warhead. It should be self evident that this is a daunting challenge, given that billions of dollars, thousands of hours of the most capable scientists and program managers our military and private sector can focus on this task, and the most advanced equipment and technology money can buy have produced five successive failures in the THAAD program. Those who have spoken before me today have identified a host of reasons why we should not rush to judgment today to decide we will spend somewhere between $30 and $60 billion to deploy a national missile defense system that has neither been developed nor proven. If the Senate moves to proceed to the consideration of this legislation, I expect to have something to say about many of those other considerations. But at this moment, I want to mention to the Senate only two of those considerations. The first is that it would be irresponsible to make a decision of this magnitude--which might cost U.S. taxpayers upwards of $50 billion--before the Senate knows that there is a workable technology. That is even more irresponsible in my judgment when one looks at the intelligence estimates of the ballistic missile threat that faces the U.S. The simple truth, Mr. President, is that only Russia and China have such missiles, and despite the fact that some rogue nations such as North Korea have been working to develop more advanced ballistic missiles, our intelligence and military leaders do not expect those threats to materialize for a decade or more. Let me reiterate, Mr. President, that the choice the Senate will make today is not about whether we should make a herculean effort to develop anti-missile technology. We are doing that and spending multi-billions of dollars to do it as rapidly and well as our best minds can do so. The vote today will not alter that mission or our commitment to it. The vote today is about whether--at a time before a real ballistic missile threat from sources other than Russia and China exists, at a time before we perfect the anti-missile technology on which we have been energetically working for years so that we know it is ready to be deployed--we will make a national commitment of scores of billions of dollars to field the nonexistent system against nonexistent threats. That, Mr. President, would be an unwise decision of great magnitude, particularly at a time when we face very real threats to our national security and when we are struggling to provide the resources to ensure our military and intelligence capabilities are both appropriate and adequate to address those threats. It also ignores the possibility that we will rush pell mell to deploy a national missile defense system based on today's technology when, if we delay the deployment decision until we believe a real threat is looming, we can then deploy the latest technology--the most reliable technology then available--to meet the threat. The urgency that the bill's proponents are voicing is a false urgency, Mr. President. I hope the Senate will look at this carefully and will choose the prudent course by rejecting the bill before us.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join many of my colleagues in support of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998. This legislation is a victory for taxpayers, a victory for small businesses, and a victory for the American family. I applaud the work of my colleagues, Senators Roth, Bob Kerrey, Grassley, and others, who have demonstrated such determination, vision and leadership on this issue. I believe that the average American taxpayer is fundamentally honorable, willing to play by the rules and carry his or her fair share of public obligations. Most public servants at the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) perform their jobs responsibly. But, sadly, there are exceptions on both sides of this equation, and those exceptions lead to contentious circumstances which must receive careful IRS management attention. Regrettably, that has too often not been forthcoming. Along with most Americans, I watched the recent Senate Finance Committee oversight hearings on the Internal Revenue Service. A number of witnesses told of economic and emotional hardship at the hands of abusive IRS agents. Unfortunately, while the facts of a number of these cases were shocking, the fact that there are such cases was not surprising. During my 13 years in the Senate, I have assisted many taxpayers in Massachusetts who have protested similar treatment by IRS employees. Most recently here the widow of a well-respected lawyer filed suit, charging that her husband was literally hounded to death by IRS collection agents. He committed suicide on Cape Cod, leaving behind a note which complained that the IRS ``sits, does nothing and then watches you die.'' While we must be careful not to presumptuously conclude that all problems that arise between the taxpayers and the IRS are the result of inappropriate actions or demeanor by the IRS and its employees, the evidence indicates this is the cause with sufficient frequency that the Congress is compelled to address this problem. It is clear that the Internal Revenue Service is subject to some difficult challenges. After downsizing in recent years, the remaining IRS agents are strained as they try to meet the demands of increased audit and collection work. The management structure within the IRS has made these problems even more difficult to solve. Regardless of the reason, the abusive and humiliating tactics about which we all heard during the Finance Committee hearings are intolerable and must be stopped. This legislation is an important step in the process of reinstituting controls at the IRS that should rectify these problems. Our system of taxation is based on voluntary compliance. And we have the best record of paying our taxes in the industrialized world. For at least part of the last two decades, 95 percent of wage-earners in this country paid their taxes accurately and on time. And while a recent study found that nearly 12 percent of our economic output evades taxation, this number is dwarfed by the noncompliance rates of our international competitors. I have previously supported reform efforts that were intended to make tax collection fairer, and the IRS more accountable. In 1988, I cosponsored the Taxpayers Bill of Rights which expanded the procedural and disclosure rights of taxpayers when dealing with the IRS, prohibited the use of collection results in IRS employee evaluations, and banned revenue collection quotas. During the 104th Congress, I cosponsored the Senate version of the Taxpayers Bill of Rights II, which created the Office of Taxpayer Advocate, allowed installment payments of tax liabilities of less than $10,000, and imposed notification and disclosure requirements on the IRS. Last year, we enacted the Taxpayer Browsing Protection Act, which imposes civil and criminal penalties on Federal employees who gain unauthorized access to tax returns and other taxpayer information. The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 before the Senate today will restructure and reorganize the Internal Revenue Service. It will create a new IRS Oversight Board to review and approve strategic plans and operational functions which are crucial to the future of the agency. The Oversight Board, consisting of six citizens, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Commissioner of the IRS and a representative of the IRS employees' union, will reestablish control of the IRS by reviewing operations and ensuring the proper treatment of taxpayers by the IRS. It will shift the burden of proof from the taxpayer to the IRS in court if the taxpayer complies with the Internal Revenue Code and regulations, maintains required records and cooperates with IRS requests for information. I do have some concerns that this provision could give comfort to a small number of Americans who will do anything to avoid paying their taxes and may make the system of tax collection even more complicated. But I think the benefits for the great majority of taxpayers who are trying to do the right thing required support for the bill. The bill also would allow taxpayers to sue the IRS for up to $100,000 in civil damages caused by negligent disregard of the law. It also expands the ability of taxpayers to recover costs, including the repeal of the ceiling on hourly attorneys' fees. Finally, it expands the protections provided to ``innocent spouses'' who find themselves liable for taxes, interest, or penalties because of actions by their spouse about which they did not know and had no reason to know. This bill makes positive changes that will foster continued growth and cooperation by the American people. If we were to do nothing, and the IRS were to continue on its present course, it is likely that there would be a continued slide in the public's faith in the tax collection system. Americans merit an efficient and a respectful government. In the course of history, we have fought for freedom from despotic bureaucracies. At the essence of our democracy is our right to alter any public institution which fails significantly to deal respectfully and competently with American citizens. I believe the changes this legislation will make will regain the balance that has been lost in the relationship of the taxpayers to the IRS while permitting the IRS to do the difficult job it was created to do. That job is vital to our government's ability to provide the essential services on which virtually every American depends to some extent: Social Security benefits, our armed forces, law enforcement, Medicare and Medicaid, air traffic control, administration of our national parks and forests, etc. This is a good bill that will help taxpayers and the IRS. I will support its passage and implementation and look forward to its results.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we celebrate the 50th birthday of the State of Israel, a birthday reached after half a century of struggle, of perseverance, and on too many occasions, for too many families, of pain. We also celebrate half a century of vision--and hope above all else that when we join together to recognize the 100th birthday of the State of Israel we will do so in an age of lasting peace. It is only fitting that the sense of joy that has accompanied this historic milestone for Israel here in the United States is exceeded only within the borders of Israel itself. Israel and the United States share great ideas as well as a great alliance; and the security of Israel is indispensable to the security of the United States. We accept this fact as central to our foreign policy, to our national interests, and to our view of the world itself. It has been true since the day of Truman and we pray this truth will guide us through the next millennium. But we sometimes forget that these two great nations--the United States of America and the State of Israel--share another rare quality, as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated so eloquently. Neither country is just a spot on the map, a piece of geography; both are founded on a shining vision of human dignity and purpose. It was an American poet who wrote, ``Nothing grows, unless first a dream.'' Those like Elie Weisel remind us that not even dreams survive without a great struggle. The Jewish people have taught us much about dignity and purpose because they have preserved their dream and their undying vision through two thousand years in exile and persecution. To arrive at this historic day they had to outlast history's fiercest fires of hate. That resilience is testimony to a vision forged in adamantine; to the strongest wills and the bravest hearts; an unbreakable spirit that keep Israel alive and daring even into the twenty-first century. It is that same will that we all pray will guide Israel to an era of peace in the Middle East. Tonight we pay tribute to those who will never see that era of harmony, that day when Israel is a homeland and a safe haven for all who share in that vision. We remember those who died in the hope that even if they could not know peace and safety, those who bore their name might live the dream for them. That sacrifice inspires us all to push forward. I will never forget that when, addressing age old violence and the awful spectacle of man's inhumanity to man, Prime Minister Rabin exclaimed ``Enough is enough.'' He touched a chord within anyone who mourns an innocent life lost, who thinks about the future doctor, teacher, nurse, scientist, poet, diplomat, or artists that will never be. Behind all the words and diplomatic documents, shrouded by the haze of the gunfire, that is the reality that must be changed before it happens again and again. On my first trip to Israel, I toured the country from Kibbutz Mizgav Am to Masada to the Golan. I stood in the very shelter in a kibbutz in the north where children were attacked and I looked at launching sites and impact zones for Katousha rockets. Like many visitors, I was enthralled by Tel Aviv, moved by Jerusalem and inspired by standing above Capernaum, looking out over the Sea of Galilee, where I read aloud the Sermon on the Mount. I met people of stunning commitment, who honestly and vigorously debated the issues as I watched and listened intently. I went as a friend by conviction; I returned a friend at the deepest personal level. That understanding, that sense of kinship, is shared not just between a set of leaders or between families, but by two nations with a shared faith in the power of the human spirit. The United States and Israel will walk forward together Herzl's famous words, ``If you will it, it is no dream,'' signify the promise and the greatest power of Israel--and the hope, after half a century, that a fair and secure peace is finally within reach. For our part as Americans, we must dedicate ourselves to pushing ahead in the coming years more committed than ever to support Israel in the exacting, essential, and sometimes tense search for that dream. A pain which the heart can never forget reminds us that the ashes of Holocaust victims were scattered on the wind. But that wind also carries on it their prayers and purpose--above mountains and sea, across hundreds or thousands of miles, so that the pain of history is redeemed in the land of Israel. It is a sacred place--for those who have made it their home and for all the world. So let us now resolve again that in the next fifty years, as in the past five decades, we will make our best efforts to keep secure this sacred land. In many respects, our task as Americans, as a good ally and a committed world neighbor, appears easier in the reflection of history. The memory will never escape me, the emotions that touched me on top of Masada, when I stood on that great plateau where the oath of new soldiers used to be sworn against the desert backdrop and the test of history. I had spent several hours with Yadin Roman debating whether or not in fact Josephus Flavius was correct in his account of the siege-- whether these really were the last Jews fighting for survival-- whether they had escaped since no remains were ever found. Finally, after our journey through history, which we resolved with a vote in favor of history as recorded, we stood as a group at the end of the cliff and altogether we shouted across the chasm--across the desert and across time--Am Yisrael Chai. And across the silence we listened as voices came back; faintly we heard the echo of the souls of those who perished--Am, Yisrael Chai. The State of Israel lives. The people of Israel live. We must do our part to see that future generations are born into and live in a peace that will never be questioned. We celebrate half a century of struggle and victory for the people of Israel, living every day in a dream that is timeless. We pray tonight for a peace for all the ages.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, like the vast majority of my colleagues, I am anxious to speed the funds provided by this bill to the communities all across our country that have been adversely affected by natural disasters. I am equally anxious to provide the funds necessary to maintain our crucial peacekeeping efforts in Bosnia. This spending is so important because it responds to emergencies-- unforeseen events that cause terrible damage to property and to life. Everyone in this chamber understands that the unpredictable nature of these unfortunate events makes budgeting or planning for disasters, by definition, very difficult. That is why the Senate's rules allow us to spend money on an emergency basis without finding offsetting budget cuts. And that is exactly what we in the Senate did when we passed this bill originally. Unfortunately, through no fault of the distinguished Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Mr. Stevens, or Ranking Member Byrd, this bill now includes over $2.3 billion of cuts in rental assistance for very low income families. I regret to say that Republican conferees from the other body demanded these cuts to move forward on this emergency bill. They chose, once again, to try to use Americans who have seen their lives torn apart by tornadoes or floods, who have lost homes and businesses, as a tool to attack the poor, to pursue their cruel ideological agenda. I am incapable of understanding, Mr. President, what sense it makes to take away one man's home to pay for another's. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. Every year--year-after-year--this Congress raids the housing budget to pay for other programs. Of course the House Republican Leadership has offered ``assurances'' that these funds will be restored. Who will pay for those? Will that money come from health care for veterans? From crucial environmental programs? From our children's education? That, Mr. President, is only a shell game, and the victims, regardless of which ones are chosen, would be the disadvantaged and powerless. That is nothing short of shameful. There are 400,000 families who will lose their housing assistance if these funds aren't restored next year. The Department of Housing and Urban Development just released a report revealing that 5.3 million families already live on the brink of homelessness. Without rental assistance, that number will grow dramatically. Mr. President, I also am terribly disappointed that the Republican Majority has chosen to play politics with two other vital matters: funding to pay our arrearages to the United Nations, and funding for the International Monetary Fund. The President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, numbers of other senior government officials, and hundreds of international business leaders, economists, and foreign policy experts have pleaded with the Congress to take the responsible step of meeting our obligations in these two key respects. Our continued failure to pay our bills to the United Nations--an organization which helps reduce conflict in the world, and which we as a nation press into service for such vital national security objectives as isolating Saddam Hussein in order to halt his diabolical adventurism and to prevent him from developing and using weapons of mass destruction--not only threatens the ability of that institution to survive and function as designed and as we depend on it to function. Our failure sullies our leadership and announces to the world community of nations that we are too good, too mighty, too righteous to be bothered by the responsibilities of world citizenship. The thought that we can do this perpetually and retain our influence for good; the thought that we can do this and retain the ability effectively to insist that other nations meet their obligations to the world community, is nothing less than preposterous. Similarly, Mr. President, it appears that there are many in the Congress who are somehow both willing and able to play ostrich--to pretend either that the effects of the economic collapse that has rippled through the nations and economies of the Pacific Rim are and will remain wholly confined to that region of the world, or that the world's most powerful economic engine--that of the United States--need play no significant role in the international effort to help the buffeted Asian nations regain economic stability before the disarray makes itself felt very uncomfortably among Americans. We should not be surprised, if we repeatedly insist on placing ourselves above the responsibilities and obligations recognized by the rest of the developed world, if the rest of the world begins to isolate and ignore us and our wishes. We then may find ourselves paying a terrible price for our obstinacy and arrogance in a world where, increasingly, our objectives must be met by diplomacy and persuasion rather than by force. Mr. President, this bill contains essential funding. This funding is needed to help the victims of disasters in a number of areas of our nation. It is needed to pay the costs incurred by our armed services to operate the humanitarian mission in Bosnia without cannibalizing funds needed to maintain the readiness of our forces across the board. I am distressed that my colleagues and I are presented with an all-or- nothing vote where, if we reject this bill for what it should do but fails to do, such as paying our U.N. arrearages and infusing funds into the IMF, and what it irresponsibly does, which is to steal desperately needed funds from efforts to meet the housing needs of our nation, we necessarily will reject what it does for disaster victims and to replenish the defense funding accounts that have been used to meet the costs of our Bosnia activities. I will vote for this bill, but I will do so with the strong reservations I have set forth. I hope the American people will take note of what has been done here, and will respond appropriately.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object--I could not hear--the majority leader intends to proceed to this after what?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I do not object.

Mr. KERRY. And it would have to be called up before we proceed?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts was asking when this would occur. I understand it is when it is called up. And it is not being called up at this time; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. This would occur when?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes, if I may, to speak to the issue of the expansion. I have watched closely and participated closely as a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I have a number of different thoughts about the place we find ourselves in now with respect to this first Eastern European expansion of new democracies to NATO --first Eastern European, obviously, since 1949. I think most Americans who follow this kind of topic very closely are somewhat surprised by the level of the debate, the nature of the debate over the past week, sort of interrupted as it was for a period of time, and also by the seeming lack of significant concern in the country about this. There is, obviously, in the past weeks a sense by many of the pundits watching this who have observed it and pointed it out that, given the momentous nature of the transfer that is taking place, there might have been considerably more concern. Obviously, some of that concern has been heightened in the last weeks. Nevertheless, I think it is fair to say the American public is fundamentally relatively oblivious to the fact that we are extending NATO's geographic range and military commitments. The debate we now find ourselves in certainly doesn't seem joined like past debates of momentous impact on our foreign policy that many of us took part in and remember when Russia was the Soviet Union and issues of arms control loomed larger on our horizon. One might ask why that is. Why is there this lack of confrontation or drama? I think it is quite simply because we are fundamentally presented with a fait accompli. It is true that the basic decisions have fundamentally been taken by Europe, by the President, by NATO, and I might point out significantly by Russia. Russia, recognizing some time ago that this was essentially a done deal, took steps to join in the available opportunities for cooperation that were made available. But at the highest levels of government it was very apparent to our leaders in bilateral discussions and otherwise that we were moving down this road. I suppose we have to be careful here, because if they mistakenly believe that somehow if they had offered greater opposition it might have been otherwise, I don't think that is necessarily the case, but clearly the debate would have been different, at least somewhat different. So here we are in the Senate constitutionally charged with the power of advising and consenting of treaties. But essentially the Senate itself has been packaged and delivered much as the treaty has. I know that some outside of the Senate argued, ``Well, it is never too late. We can always make a different decision.'' But I think everybody understands the reality of where we find ourselves. I have talked to a great many of my colleagues, each of whom have expressed the notion that perhaps a partnership-of-a-peace approach, or some other approach, might have been more advisable, but finding themselves where they were, they came out of that dilemma and that equation where we are today also. It must also be pointed out, though, at the same time for those who have been complaining about the process, that the U.S. Senate had ample opportunity to do what it seems to be expressing a desire to do at the next stage, and that is be more a part of the process, impose itself more, know the consultative process, and, frankly, be more vigilant with respect to what the consequences are of some of the resolutions that come to the floor in the meantime, it is clear, however, that one of the reasons of the sense of lack of engagement at this moment is the reality that the Senate has gone on record a number of times in the last few years as being totally supportive of moving forward with enlargement. So I think that all of this really underscores the dilemma of this ratification process at this stage. It has been very hard for anybody to object also to the notion that reconnecting Europe's east and west, performing modern diplomatic plastic surgery on a historical dividing line, which reminds everyone of Soviet oppression, and that post-World War II allied lassitude is somehow wrong. In addition, many have found it difficult to say no, even if they thought they had reservations, to the countries of people who have so constructively and plentifully contributed to the life in the United States in which we are so connected historically, culturally, and politically; and many have found it difficult to even say no knowing that those countries at some point in the future in the meantime-- depending on what Russia evolves into, depending on what history decides to lay in front of us, what history ultimately will be in the region--might someday ask the question that was on their lips in the not so distant past, which is, Why didn't you help us when you could? So we are engaged in a debate that is rooted significantly in the emotions and the memories of the cold war, and with only a minimal and late reference to the changes that have already taken place, both in Europe and the rest of the world and in Russia, and to the full ramifications of the process of enlargement once begun. The truth is that NATO already is no longer the same entity that it was a decade ago, and it no longer faces the same threat. For 40 years, NATO has stood as a bulwhark, preserving European security, and, by extension, our own security for one very simple reason. It was poised against the threat that was posed by the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies. NATO was the simple wall of deterrence against Soviet expansionism and nuclear Armageddon. It drew its power and its raison d'etre from the geopolitical circumstances of the times. It was there like Everest, and it deterred because of its unwavering presence. It was not because of what NATO did that it drew its power. It was because of what was on paper, and in possibility. But now, with the Soviet Union's empire and the threat that they pose is gone, the truth is that so too is NATO's original mission. Today, democratic elements with varying degrees of success are taking root where communism once held sway even in Russia. To my knowledge, not one military expert or intelligence analyst has suggested that a threat like the old threat could emerge again without at least 10 years of buildup and warning. To be sure, Russia continues to be a nuclear power, but obviously a very different kind of nuclear power than the Soviet Union of yesterday. It is a country trying to make the transition to democracy and to Western institutions and values, both at home and abroad. So while NATO continues to be a ``collective defense alliance,'' its mission today is not at least, so we state, to defend against the Russian threat, but nevertheless if we are to be honest, it is certainly at least still a principal rationale of it that we maintain it for and enlarge it as a hedge against the potential of future threats against the unknown, including that of the potential of recidivism in Russia. Now with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the change in the nature of the threat, NATO has already begun a kind of transition expanding its mission to include other tasks. For example, peacekeeping, as evidenced by the presence in Bosnia, and the new NATO, if you will, has an expanded vision of the range of potential threats that include not only challenges posed by ethnic and political rivalries within Europe to global threats, such as terrorism or nuclear proliferation, but also a greater willingness to undertake certain kinds of missions to cope with those threats. I know some of my colleagues find that transformation particularly troubling. Some may believe that what we passed with respect to the language and the scope of the NATO mission doesn't, in fact, change any of that. But I suspect as we go down the road and think about enlargement later on in other countries, the questions about those roles will become even more significant. Mr. President, in my judgment, notwithstanding some of those cautionary instincts that a lot of us have about this process, and notwithstanding the potential difficulties that we may face down the road, I believe it is clear that the three countries in question-- Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic--meet the basic requirements for membership in NATO, and that we need to recognize that in less than a decade those nations have successfully transformed themselves from Communist states into vital democracies with emerging market economies. They have taken steps to establish civilian control over the military, and as participants in NATO's Partnership for Peace programs since 1994, they have already begun the process of integration into the NATO force structure and command. Each of these three nations has made it clear they are prepared to foot the cost of membership, and they have taken the steps to improve relations with their neighbors in an effort to earn that membership. I believe that the benefits of bringing Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic into NATO are real. It will heighten the sense of security within those three countries not only through the extension of NATO's military guarantee but also through the psychological benefits of being a European member and a member of the NATO club, and interactions within the alliance will clearly help to strengthen the new democracies and their abilities to assimilate themselves into Europe both economically and politically, and obviously militarily within NATO's integrated force structure. Their membership will enhance stability in Central Europe and strengthen NATO itself through the acquisition of additional forces and personnel to cope with future threats and missions. These benefits notwithstanding--I think they are real--I express the concern that, as a number of colleagues have expressed it, admission of these countries, unless we do our job properly in the Senate, unless the consultation process is thoroughly pursued in the course of the next year, and unless we measure carefully the aftermath of the process of integration, the questions raised by the Senator from Alaska about funding, the questions raised by Senator Warner and Senator Moynihan, I think, are legitimate questions, not sufficient in and of themselves to stop us from proceeding forward, but questions which will have to be answered and addressed in order to be able to proceed forward. It is important for us in the Senate not to permit the first tranche of admission to somehow create an automatic dynamic for further expansion to countries whose membership in NATO could conceivably--not definitely, but conceivably--pose serious strategic implications for the security of Europe and of the United States. Personally, I believe, as others have expressed the fact, that it might have been equally as sensible, perhaps more sensible but equally as feasible, to proceed along the same line of building our relationships, building the democracies, integrating forces while simultaneously achieving the goal of START II and force reduction in Russia and building the democracy of Russia by dealing with the Partnership for Peace. That was not the choice that was made, so we cannot stand here and debate what might have been. But I am convinced that a longer period of integration of armed forces and economic development over the next months will be critical to making the judgment about the next tranche, and it is critical for all of us not to allow this first vote to somehow create expectations that are unmeetable or create a dynamic that takes control of the process in and of itself. One of the reasons I think it makes so much sense, obviously, and so much easier to accomplish what we are accomplishing now, which is why I think the vote will be significant in affirming it, is that historically these particular countries were a part of Europe before falling prey to Soviet domination during the cold war and culturally they do regard themselves as European. At the moment, there is no immediate threat to the security of those countries, but perhaps most importantly, the most significant component of Russia's leadership, beginning with President Yeltsin, came to recognize the inevitability of our initial intentions as well as to work out a process with the United States to make that acceptance possible. The real question that has been asked eloquently by a number of our colleagues and needs to be watched carefully as we go forward from here is, when other countries of greater geographical or strategic significance to Russia push to admission, we have to carefully measure what the ramifications of that acceptance or rejection may be at that time. And I am confident that because of this process in the last weeks, the Senate is more prepared to do that than it may have been previously. I believe the administration deserves significant credit for the way it has, in fact, managed this process. They have been, I think, particularly adept at focusing on those issues which have been raised in the Chamber with respect to Russia, and in my judgment they have laid the groundwork for our capacity to proceed down a cooperative, not a confrontational, road with Russia as a result. But clearly transitional politics in Russia, future issues about succession, and the politics of that nation have to play into our consideration in subsequent rounds. We have to distinctly remember, I think, several critical facts. Democracy in Russia is in its earliest stages; Russia is still a nuclear power and the principal potential threat to European and American security; and, third, a good working relationship with Russia is clearly necessary if we are to achieve a whole set of other critical objectives on our foreign policy agenda, particularly that of nuclear proliferation, nuclear weapons reduction, and the containment of Iraq both now and in the future. The rationale for NATO expansion is rooted in the presumption that the continued existence of NATO is in our interests. It is the world's only established, effective, integrated military force with readiness and training. It benefits both us and Europe by tying us together and anchoring our involvement with the continent. It acts as a stabilizing influence on members that might otherwise come to blows, such as Greece and Turkey. It helps to nourish and strengthen the shared values and interests of its members and, through its security guarantee, it promotes the development of a united and secure Europe. All of these offer very legitimate reasons for this current step that we take, but, again, one should not assume that that process of expansion or all of those interests will be served in the same way or be risk free as we go down the road. Russia, as Secretary Albright acknowledged during the Foreign Relations Committee hearings, has always had strong nationalist forces which interpret every move that the West makes as anti-Russian. And while these forces may not have prevailed during this first round of expansion, there is no certainty as to what will happen in the future or that the next time we confront this issue, they may not be dominant within the life of the politics of Russia. In fact, the immediate prospect of NATO extending such an invitation could well propel those forces to dominance, given the transitional and tenuous aspects of the domestic politics of Russia. So I think the question has to be asked as we go down the road, Will we and Europe be more secure if that were to occur or if Russia decided to enhance its security by increasing its reliance on nuclear weapons, therefore reversing the course that began with the ratification of START I and the signing of START II? Clearly, a country not defined an enemy today is hopefully not going to be made an enemy in the future by our unwillingness to be sensitive to some of those kinds of considerations. Administration officials have stated thus far that no commitments or promises have been made about other nations' membership, and I placed into the Record earlier a letter from the President to the effect that he intends to adhere to a very strict consultative process in the future and that no secret or private commitments regarding membership will be made in the interval. It seems to me that is the most important fact for us to focus on as we consider the future and the potential of what the Senate may face down the road. Some people may view that the assurances of the President are inadequate, but I disagree. I think when you really examine the full nature of the consultative process that we have had previously--the NAC visits, our visits to Europe, our discussions with NATO, our discussions in Brussels, the various meetings that took place between defense ministers and the Parliament and Congress--there has really been, I think, a much more lengthy consultative process than many Members have been willing to acknowledge. In my judgment, as I said, Congress in many ways ratified most of that by passing a number of different resolutions along the course of time which stated that we were supportive of that particular enlargement. In light of that examination, of that process of consultation, and the President's commitment to replicate it as well as to avoid any private commitments, I think Congress is going to have ample opportunity, as we go down the road, to make the judgments about which some of our colleagues have expressed some concern. I agree with the administration and with the Senator from North Carolina and others that we must never give Russia or any country a veto over our foreign policy. We certainly should not give them a veto over the question fundamentally of NATO enlargement. I agree with that. But I also strongly believe we have a fundamental responsibility to consider any country's likely reactions to the steps we take and other kinds of cooperative efforts that may be available to us at any point in time to secure the same interests that we may or may not be seeking to occur from actions that would, in fact, create a counterreaction. I look forward to that future deliberation, and I also look forward to a greater clarity that will come through the act of this first expansion with respect to the budgets and the true costs and true interests as they will define themselves as we go down the road. The bottom line is, however, that this expansion of NATO at this point in time under these circumstances will make NATO stronger and will also protect, enhance, and serve the interests of the United States of America. Those are the fundamental reasons for which we should enter into any kind of treaty, and that is why I will vote for this treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Delaware. I share the concerns of many Senators with respect to the possibilities of future rapid expansion, and there are serious questions from the Congress about the control of that. But I do think the constitutional issues of restraint of a President before the fact on foreign policy are significant, and equally significant, I believe, that we will have ample opportunity for consultation. I will ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the President that I received on April 23. I call my colleagues' attention to one particular paragraph, which is, the President says: I pledge to undertake the same broad pattern of consultation before making any future decisions about invitations of membership to other states, or making any membership commitments. In other words, no private membership commitments will be made outside of the process of the U.S. Congress consultation. I might also add that that consultation in the past has taken over several years, with a number of different resolutions of support having been passed previously. So I think in that light I will oppose the Warner amendment. I ask unanimous consent the full text of the letter from the President be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would ask unanimous consent to be recognized following Senator Stevens.

Mr. KERRY. I would so ask.

Mr. KERRY. I will not object, but I would just like to ask would it be appropriate to include in the unanimous-consent request time for me to speak after the vote?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will join, I hope with the vast majority of colleagues on this side of the aisle, to vote against this bill even though the bill is an important bill and it is one that I have worked on with the ranking member and chairman for a long period of time. I know the chairman worked diligently to try to break this bill free of the Mexico City language and to try to have the capacity to move forward on the floor. I applaud him for his good-faith efforts to do that. Let me say to my colleagues that this is a tragedy of enormous proportions. It is dangerous. It is damaging to the interests of the United States to tie the U.N. arrearages and larger policy questions to one issue, to one point of view, by a very narrow percentage of Members of the U.S. Congress who want to tie it in this way to the United Nations. It is a form of a kind of political blackmail. The reality is that the United States of America is going to lose significant prestige, significant leverage, and our interests are going to be set back in the international arena. We are going to be hurt with respect to issues like Bosnia. If anybody mistakes it, all you have to do is look at the way in which the coalition fell apart over Iraq and the issue of holding Saddam Hussein accountable for weapons of mass destruction. Talk to anybody at the United Nations and you can learn very quickly about the growing anger of nations who watched the United States, which has become a scofflaw within the United Nations, unwilling to live up to the rules that we helped to write, unwilling to fulfill our obligations under the United Nations, all because one point of view in the U.S. Congress can't have its way. I think those who think about this should think hard about what interest is being served here--the interests of abortion versus the interests of world leadership of the United States in the United Nations. That is what is at stake here. I think the President ought to veto this and we ought to hold those accountable who are unwilling to assert the interests of the United States, the world's leader, all nations of the world today looking to us for that leadership, and here we are, handicapping ourselves over a totally separate issue.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are several provisions in this conference report which trouble me greatly. For example, the bill abolishes the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA) and merges its functions into the Department of State. As one who has always believed that there are sensible ways to reorganize our foreign affairs agencies, I do not oppose this merger. However, I am concerned that the bill fails to augment the State Department's budget in fiscal year 1999 to ensure that the vital activities for which ACDA is now responsible will continue. The bill also perpetuates and increases funding for international broadcasting activities--an approach which, in my view, is not the most effective use of scarce resources at a time when there are so many other sources of information available globally. However, the main reason why I am going to vote against this conference report is that it imposes unacceptable conditions on funding for international family planning organizations. Section 1816 of the bill was offered by Congressman Chris Smith in a sham conference process in which no Democrat from the Senate or the House was invited to participate. It has been billed by its author as a so-called ``compromise'' to bridge the gap between the House, which has voted to reinstate the Mexico City policy of the Reagan and Bush administrations, and the Senate, which has repeatedly supported the Clinton Administration's decision to abandon it. The Mexico City policy ended assistance to private family planning organizations overseas if the organization was involved in voluntary abortion activities even if US funds were not used for such activities. Of course, since 1973 US funding for abortions overseas has been banned by law and international family planning organizations have been prohibited from using US funds to pay for abortions. Even abortion opponents agree that there is no direct US funding of abortions abroad. Make no mistake about it. The Smith provision is no compromise. First, it tries to dictate how foreign family planning organizations use their own funds by mandating that no US population assistance may be given to any foreign organization unless the organization certifies that it will not use its own funds to counsel or perform abortions. If the President exercises the waiver of this provision, funding for family planning activities will be cut by $44 million. Far worse, however, is the expanded ban on lobbying which amounts to a gag rule on organizations receiving US population funding. The Smith provision prohibits funding for any foreign organization that ``engages in any activity or effort to alter the laws or governmental policies of any foreign country concerning the circumstances under which abortion is permitted, regulated or prohibited.'' The statement of managers makes it clear that the phrase ``alter the laws or governmental policies'' is broadened well beyond traditional lobbying to include ``sponsoring conferences, and workshops on the alleged defects of the abortion laws, as well as the drafting and distribution of materials or public statements calling attention to such alleged defects.'' In other words, under this prohibition, which is not waivable, any foreign organization which dares to enter a legitimate public policy debate on the abortion issue in its own country would be denied US family planning assistance. The lobby ban in the Smith amendment is anti-democratic in every sense of the word. As Secretary of State Albright has said, it is ``basically a gag rule that would punish organizations for engaging in the democratic process in foreign countries and for engaging in legal activities that would be protected by the First Amendment if carried out in the United States.'' It sacrifices free speech, a right we Americans hold dear, for ideological purposes on the abortion issue. This gag rule harkens back to the old days of American imperialism by telling others in foreign countries what they can and cannot say and do. It runs counter to our long held belief in pluralism, open political processes and democratic participation, and it undermines a central tenet of our foreign policy: encouraging democratic political practices abroad and participation by non governmental organizations in those processes. The Mexico City provision in this conference report, with its gag rule, will not reduce the number of abortions but rather increase it. The effect of this provision, if enacted, would be to cut funding for family planning programs, thereby decreasing access to the most effective means of reducing abortion. Finally, Mr. President, I think it is a travesty that the reorganization of our foreign affairs agencies--an issue on which the Administration and the Congress have finally found common ground after much disagreement--and our efforts to pay our debts at the United Nations and promote much-needed reform in that body are being held hostage to a domestic issue which is irrelevant to the substance and goals of this bill. This is not the proper place or the proper time to engage yet again in a debate over Mexico City. For this reason alone, I urge my colleagues to vote against this conference report. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. A second point is most of those people are putting away for higher education because they have no place to put it in terms of the public school unless they might choose to spend it on a computer or something, but there is no proof they will do that. There is no proof here as to how people will be able to spend their money. I will not get into how you go down that road. The underlying component of this that is so disturbing, after you finish that analysis, is this, and I think the Senator from Georgia will have to acknowledge it. You are still leaving that vast 90 percent out there, most of whom in the worst situations are stuck in situations where this will not improve their lives, their education, their capacity to move forward. That is the great dilemma that so many of us have with this. As I said, I like savings accounts. I want to vote for a savings account. I cannot do it in the structure that has been put in this bill. That is my regret.

Mr. KERRY. That is exactly what I said in my comments: 52 percent versus 48 percent. That is almost even. But when you take that 48 percent and look at their income levels, you have the largest percentage----

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. The problems that our teachers face today are different from anything that ever existed previously in our lives. Kids come to school with different baggage. And teachers are expected to perform a whole set of functions which they are not able to perform, which they have not been trained to perform, and in many cases which they are simply not allowed to perform because the political correctness of the school system or the political correctness of the school boards, and the politics of it, deny them the ability to be able to do the things that you can do in some of these other schools. I think people who are looking to those other schools, for example, are right. They are right. You have to look around to where education is really happening. You have to look to where kids are coming out with higher test scores, with better values, with a better sense of discipline, with a sense of order, and with opportunity in their lives. But why is it that we are incapable in the Senate of finding the ability to look for the common ground where we could find the best of what happens in parochial schools, the best of what happens in charter schools, the best of what happens in blue ribbon schools, and make it happen in all of our schools? We did not try in this debate, in my judgment, because I think the Senate was busy talking past each other, creating a lot of 30-second advertisements for campaigns and fundamentally setting up a structure where the kids are once again the victims of our unwillingness to meet these issues. We need a lot of fundamental reform in our school system, and I will speak considerably to that over the course of the next weeks. But I regret that in the course of this debate good ideas were left languishing. Let me give you an example. There was one amendment that passed by 63 votes which provides incentives for States to establish and administer periodic teacher testing and merit pay programs. I am for that. I voted against it though. Why did I vote against it? Because it takes the money from teacher training programs for the very people who are trying to improve, who are in the system today, who have to have ongoing efforts in order to meet the standards that we want them to meet. So why could we not guarantee at least that we would protect the current structure sufficiently and find the capacity to provide the merit pay and have the testing? And I think that what has happened generally here is the process of robbing Peter to pay Paul, because we are unwilling to acknowledge the size and complexity of the overall reform effort that is necessary. My hope is we will come back to this effort after the President has gone through his effort. Or perhaps the conference committee will totally rewrite this with a miracle. My hope is we will come back and write a bill that will adequately reflect the full measure of reform that is necessary and, most importantly, the full measure of commitment to the public school system of this country. My friend from New Jersey said this is not a voucher system. Well, it is not. It is not a direct voucher system. But you cannot tell me if 52 percent of the benefit goes to people in private schools and all of a sudden they are getting $2,000 instead of $500, that that will increase support for the public school system when they now have increased dollars in their pocket to send their kids to more private schools. It is a backdoor voucher system. It is providing a savings account that, in effect, has the impact of a voucher system because it strengthens parochial and private at the expense of the public school system and diminishes the base of support, the foundation for that system. I will vote against it. I hope the Senate will come back to have a real debate on education in the future.