John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is with great satisfaction that I rise today to speak on behalf of S. 1139, the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. The legislation now before the Senate is the product of negotiations between the House and Senate to resolve the differences in the bill passed by the Senate in early September and the bill crafted by Chairman Talent and Congressman LaFalce. I am pleased that so many of the provisions of the original Senate bill have been retained in virtually identical form, such as the welfare-to-work Microloan Initiative, the extension of the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, the Women's Business Centers program and the HUBZone Act. I congratulate Chairman Bond for his leadership and stewardship through this year's reauthorization process. His willingness to craft a bipartisan bill has ensured that the Small Business Administration will continue to operate effectively in the years to come providing support to thousands of America's small businesses. A component of this bill which I believe to be one of the most important to assist our aspiring entrepreneurs is the Microloan Program. The Microloan Program was created 6 years ago through the vision and hard work of Senator Bumpers. Since then, the Microloan Program has operated on a pilot basis, providing loans in amounts averaging $10,000 to small businesses, and more importantly, providing technical assistance to these businesses on how to better operate their enterprises. One of the major reasons why new businesses in America fail is because so many people who want to start their own companies really have little idea on how to conduct the day-to-day financial operations that are so crucial to keeping a business afloat and making it a successful enterprise. The technical assistance provided by the intermediaries in the Microloan Program has had an impressive impact on the success of businesses participating in this program. Moreover, the losses to the Government have been minuscule, despite the higher risk associated with micro lending. In fact, since the Microloan Program has been in existence, there has been only one default of an intermediary's loan from the SBA. That is an amazing fact, and one which I believe demonstrates the financial soundness of the Microloan Program. The Congress wholeheartedly supports making the Microloan loan and technical assistance programs permanent SBA programs, and do so in this bill. S. 1139 also contains provisions for a new initiative for the Microloan Program, one which will go a step further to reach aspiring entrepreneurs who may now be on Government assistance. In addition to loans and technical training, participants in this welfare-to-work Microloan initiative will be able to receive assistance to help defray child care and transportation expenses, two of the biggest obstacles welfare recipients face in their attempts to become active, contributing members of society. Inclusion of the welfare-to-work Microloan Program in the Small Business Reauthorization Act allows SBA to apply knowledge learned over the last 6 years to address one of the most pressing issues facing us today. In June, Senator Domenici, Senator Bond and I introduced the Women's Business Centers Act. I am extremely pleased that the major provisions of that bill are included in the legislation now before us. Authorization for funding the Women's Business Centers Program has been doubled in this bill, and extends the eligibility of awardees from 3 years to 5 years. This bill also provides for studies to be conducted on contracting and finance issues as they affect women-owned businesses. This section of the Small Business Reauthorization Act will strengthen a sector of our economy that contributes over $1.5 trillion to the American economy and employs more Americans than Fortune 500 companies. The Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR] program is reauthorized for an additional 4 years through this act. An offshoot of the very successful SBIR Program, STTR has been joining small businesses and non-profit research institutions for the past four years in an attempt to make better use of federally sponsored high technology research. This bill strengthens the STTR Program by requiring more accurate data recording by the SBA and participating agencies, and requires those participating agencies to include information regarding the SBIR and STTR Programs in their strategic plans required by the Government Performance and Results Act. By doing this, we in Congress can better evaluate programs such as STTR and what provisions might best assist the kind of companies participating in the program and what changes could result in a stronger STTR when we revisit it for reauthorization 4 years from now. Chairman Bond led the way on an integral part of the reauthorization act, the HUBZones Program. This program seeks to aid small business concerns located in the poorest areas of our country by providing better opportunities to contract with the Federal Government. The HUBZone Act is the result of several years of work by Chairman Bond, and I congratulate him and his staff for this legislation which will certainly improve the economic situation of many American communities. There are a few other components of the reauthorization act that I believe warrant mentioning at this time. The Community Development Company program, also called the 504 loan program, is continued through this legislation and will provide small businesses $2.3 billion of needed capital for their plant and equipment needs. The SBA's biggest loan program, 7(a), is authorized at $39.5 billion over the next 3 years, high enough to ensure continued support for those small businesses that need extra capital to grow their businesses. In addition, this legislation also contains a provision that seeks to protect small businesses from the practice of contract bundling, which can be harmful to small business. Bundling is when a Federal agency rolls several contracts into one big contract. This practice effectively bars small businesses from participating in the lucrative Federal Government contracting process on those contracts. The language contained in this bill will help alleviate this problem to some degree so that small businesses are not left out in the cold, and will require the Government to keep records on bundled contracts valued at more than $5 million. The bill before us contains some provisions that the House included in their bill and that we have not seen before. One such provision is title VII of the bill which contains language that directs SBA to conduct a study on the potential to aid small businesses that are owned by service disabled veterans. I believe it is important to conduct research into this issue and see if the opportunity exists to better assist these businesses. There are other components of the Small Business Reauthorization Act which I have not mentioned here but will be helpful to small businesses participating in the SBA's programs. The Small Business Investment Companies and Small Business Development Centers Programs are both modified through this act. The Pilot Preferred Surety Bond Guarantee Program is also extended in this legislation. Mr. President, I would like to conclude by again thanking the Chairman of the Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, for his leadership throughout the year on reaching this point and passing what I consider to be a very meaningful and effective piece of legislation. It is clear that the Small Business Administration will be assured of its continued support by Congress as it moves ahead to the 21st century assisting the driving force of our economy, American small business. Women's Business Centers

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on October 28, Northeastern University will posthumously induct Jackie Robinson into its Sport in Society Hall of Fame. As a member of the National Advisory Board of the Center for the Study of Sport in Society, I want to make a few remarks about Robinson, the Center, and racism. Future historians will remember Jackie Robinson as one of the most significant individuals in twentieth-century U.S. history. As the first African-American to play Major League Baseball in this century, Robinson had to will himself to endure horrific abuse from fans and fellow players alike. His perseverance in the face of this challenge would have made him a memorable player even had he not excelled on the diamond. But Jackie Robinson did excel. In his distinguished career, he won the Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player awards. Robinson also played a prominent role as a member of the 1955 Brooklyn Dodgers ball club, the'' Wait `Til Next Year' team that finally bested its arch rival New York Yankees in a thrilling World Series. Recounting Robinson's greatest accomplishments as a player cannot do justice to the impact that he had on the game and our nation. His daring on the base paths brought the running game back as the major style of attack in the National League for the first time in some three decades. His success with the Dodgers led to the signing of other notable players such as Roy Campanella, Larry Doby, and Satchel Paige. His loyalty to the Dodgers ended his career prematurely. Jackie Robinson retired rather than play for the San Francisco Giants when the Dodgers sold his contract. Imagining Robinson in any uniform other than the Dodgers' is like envisioning Cal Ripken wearing New York Yankee pinstripes. Robinson also led a productive life off the field. A Republican and a businessman, Robinson devoted the remainder of his life to civil rights, party politics, and urban affairs. He bemoaned baseball's tepid efforts at integrating all levels of the great game. Sadly, baseball has made insufficient progress since Robinson's death almost a quarter of a century ago. In its ``Racial Report Card'' released earlier this year, Northeastern's Center gave Major League Baseball an overall grade of B, but only a C- for top management positions. As Jackie's widow, Rachel Robinson, the Center's Director, Richard Lapchick, and all of the other excellent employees and friends of the Center celebrate Jackie's life, we should all reflect on what we can do to honor and build on his legacy. Unquestionably, there is a distance yet to go when, for example, we have only one African-American general manager in major league baseball. I send my best wishes to Northeastern University, the Center, and Rachel Robinson on this occasion. I hope that all of us will use it as a reminder of the work that lies ahead: to realize our objective, which was Jackie Robinson's as well, of a society that does not discriminate on the basis of race and offers equal opportunity to all.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to respond briefly to the Senator from Rhode Island and make it as clear as I think it can be made clear that this is about one issue. It is not about ISTEA. It is not about the transportation needs of the country. It is about campaign finance reform. That is all this is about. We have been pressing for months to be able to get the ability to debate and have a full-fledged legislative effort on campaign finance reform. We have been denied the right to have one vote on the substance of real campaign finance reform, not one vote. The reason we are in this predicament is exclusively the resistance on the part of the Republicans to permit us to have a date certain and the ability to be able to legislate on campaign finance reform. That is all this is about. There are as many Members on the Democratic side of the aisle who want to vote for ISTEA as there are on the Republican side. ISTEA will ultimately pass the Senate, and it will pass overwhelmingly. This is about whether or not we are going to face one of the most important issues the people in this country want to face, that a group of people are resisting and will not allow the democratic process to work. It is that simple. I hope no one will confuse it in the days ahead. This could be resolved in a matter of hours by reasonably permitting those of us who seek campaign finance reform to know that we can return after the recess and be able to vote in February or March and have the Senate properly discuss the issue of campaign finance reform. This is an issue that, on the Republican side, Senator McCain has said and on our side the leadership has said and a number of us have said, is not going to go away. If there is any lesson we have learned in the Senate, it is that when there is the kind of issue that has a sufficient number of votes for the underlying bill, they do not go away. We have seen that on the minimum wage. We have seen it on a host of other issues through history here. I am confident that we can come together around some reasonable approach to campaign finance reform. We have acknowledged to Senator McConnell and others that this is an issue which will take 60 votes. We know that. We are not suggesting that this can be resolved other than by coming together with some kind of consensus that will resolve the capacity of either side to filibuster. We know that. But until we get to the business of legislating, of actually proposing amendments and working with that kind of energy, we are never going to know if we can reach that kind of consensus, and that is what this fight is about. So I hope no one confuses it as somehow surrogate or secret opposition to ISTEA. It is not. It is about the unwillingness of the Republicans at this point in time to set a date certain for campaign finance reform and to permit us to come back and do the business of the Senate. I yield the floor. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am not a member of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee, so I wanted to take a moment to address an issue that was a subject of a hearing in that Committee this morning. The Chairman of the Committee, Senator Jeffords, and my good friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, have co-sponsored an important and much-needed piece of legislation, the Employment Nondiscrimination Act of 1997. I am an original co-sponsor of that bill. Mr. President, when I was first sworn in as a United States Senator in 1985, I authored the gay and lesbian civil rights bill. At that time, only five other Senators would join me as co-sponsors of that legislation. In the 103rd Congress, I testified before the Armed Services Committee to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the military. I agree with those who testified today before the Labor Committee, including Raymond Smith, the chief executive officer of Bell Atlantic, and Herbert Valentine of the Presbyterian Church that ENDA is a solution to a serious problem in our society. I have heard from many Americans who have suffered discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It is time for these Americans to have recourse against blatant discrimination, just as Americans who are fired on the basis of their religion, national origin or gender. Massachusetts has recognized the problems of anti-gay and lesbian discrimination in the workplace and already has an ENDA-like law. Mr. President, last year, I joined 65 of our colleagues in signing a pledge that I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, promotion and firing. I personally will not tolerate discrimination in my office. Like the majority of our colleagues, signing this pledge came easy to me. I have always had openly gay and lesbian staff and they have served the people of Massachusetts with effective and committed distinction. So, now, Mr. President, I urge our colleagues to live up to the pledge they signed and support this important legislation. It is my hope that the Committee will report the bill out as soon as possible and I call upon the Majority Leader to find time to bring this important legislation to the floor for debate. It was voted on last year and wound up in a de facto tie. This year, I am confident it will pass. Mr. President, for years, groups like the Human Rights Campaign, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays, and the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, as well as members of the religious communities across this country, have educated us on the need for this bill. They have worked tirelessly with us to improve this legislation, and I applaud their tenacity and appreciate their friendship. They are dogged advocates for justice and fairness. Voices as eloquent as those of Coretta Scott King and Senator Barry Goldwater have spoken up in support of ENDA. The President of the United States has signaled his approval of the bill. Let us debate it and pass it soon, Mr. President. Let us send a strong message that all Americans matter, and that no one should suffer discrimination in the work place. Let us move forward in the fight for civil rights.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I also point out it is true that yesterday the group of 77 and China proposed a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by the year 2010 under a framework that would exempt developing nations. That is a proposal that would do serious harm to the U.S. economy. It does completely ignore the growing contributions of developing nations to the problem. It anticipates a command-and-control model that would undermine all of the opportunities for cost savings inherent in the market-based solutions that the President has proposed. I believe that is a proposal that U.S. Senators ought to oppose, and I am confident we would. But that is not what the President will agree to. That is not what the President has proposed. That is not, clearly, the negotiating framework within which the United States will attempt to approach this treaty. I urge my colleagues to read the remarks of the President so they will understand how fully it is within the framework of the resolution that the Senate passed. I hope my colleagues will stand back and really make judgments based on a fair appraisal of our negotiating position and ultimately what we hope to achieve in Kyoto. Mr. President, before I yield, I would just say it is my hope, obviously, we are about to be able to talk about the framework in which we are going to proceed on campaign finance reform. I would like to thank all of those parties who have worked together to try to come to what I think is a reasonable agreement on that. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the United States is currently engaged in negotiating a climate change treaty. This is a negotiation that we have literally only just really engaged in, in the sense that we have only now made clear to the world what our negotiating position will be, the critical elements from which we will proceed. I was somewhat troubled this morning to hear a number of our colleagues come to the floor of the Senate and, frankly, either considerably misstate or considerably misrepresent the very straightforward words of the President yesterday with respect to this subject. The following is the position that the President articulated yesterday. No. 1, it is the goal of the United States to find a binding treaty which includes not just developed nations but developing nations as well. No. 2, the U.S. goal is a binding treaty that seeks to bring greenhouse gases to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, so as to minimize economic costs to the United States. And, finally, No. 3, the United States now will undertake policies to fully leverage market mechanisms, innovation, technology, and American ingenuity to make achieving emissions reductions less costly. I remind my colleagues that all of these positions are completely within the framework of the resolution that the Senate passed, the Byrd-Hagel resolution. That resolution specifically said it must ``mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the annex I parties, unless the protocol or other agreement''--and I want to emphasize here, ``other agreement.'' The President in his proposal has made allowance for the very ``other agreement'' potential that was contemplated in the resolution we passed. It specifically requires that other agreement, or the principal agreement, mandate new, and specific scheduled reductions for the developing countries within the same compliance period. The second requirement that the Senate passed was that whatever agreement we reached would not result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. Let me emphasize, the term is ``serious harm to the economy of the United States.'' Any fair reading of the President's remarks outlining our position would find that the President is completely within the framework of the Senate resolution. And yet, today, we really heard Senators completely misrepresenting that position and asserting that it is somehow outside of the Byrd-Hagel resolution. I ask unanimous consent the full text of the President's comments be printed in the Record so people can judge for themselves the degree with which we are in compliance.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. But, if the majority leader will yield for a minute, I think we just agreed it is going to take 60 votes. The question is, we are never going to get to the point of understanding whether we can muster the 60 votes if we can't even have one vote on one of the major amendments that begins to sort out where people are and where you can find the common ground.

Mr. KERRY. And I think every Senator on this side agrees with that, but the question is larger than just that. The question is whether the entire caucus on the Democratic side and a portion of the Republican caucus is going to be permitted to know with certainty that an issue of equal and, in many people's judgment, greater importance, campaign finance reform, is going to receive its proper hearing on the floor of the Senate. I think what the Senator from Arizona was asking the Senator from Kentucky didn't really get an answer. It is one thing to say we are willing to sit down and discuss this. That discussion has to come to cloture before we are able to proceed, because we are determined to know that we are going to have adequate capacity to be able to bring up amendments and have that kind of a thorough vetting of this issue. Now, I agree with the Senator from Kentucky. This will take 60 votes. I think everybody over here understands that. And clearly we are going to have to come together in this process to arrive at those 60 votes. That is going to require us to do precisely what the leader said, which is not to be jockeying for advantage one over the other, and to find an evenhanded way to approach this. Right now we are not even having that discussion. So we are operating in a vacuum where we are being asked to accede to going forward on certain legislation without the understanding that we will be able to vote and to have these amendments come to the floor. This can be resolved in 1 hour. It can be resolved in half an hour if the majority leader were permitted to simply say to us, we will have a date certain when we return in the winter, and with that date certain, we will have x number of amendments with a period of time to vote, and we will be able to take up campaign finance reform.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it was my intention, before the leader came to the floor, and also in response to the Senator from Kentucky, to point out that the issue is not really simply whether or not we can finish the so-called important business of the Senate if that business is limited to the definition of the Senator from Kentucky, which is ISTEA and a few other matters.

Mr. KERRY. I say to the majority leader, obviously the leader takes precedence.

Mr. KERRY. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY. Five minutes.

Mr. KERRY. I simply ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to follow for up to 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce today the Early Childhood Development Act with Senator Bond. I want to thank Senator Bond for his leadership, both as a Governor who began the successful Parents as Teachers Program and for joining together in this bipartisan effort to develop a real world solution to real world problems. Mr. President, there is no issue more important in America than the urgent needs of young children. This country must rededicate itself to investing in children, an investment which will have tremendous returns. Early intervention can have a powerful effect on reducing Government welfare, health, criminal justice, and education expenditures in the long run. By taking steps now we can significantly reduce later destructive behavior such as school dropout, drug use, and criminal acts. A study of the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool found that at-risk toddlers who received preschooling and a weekly home visit reduced the risk that these children would grow up to become chronic lawbreakers by a startling 80 percent. The Syracuse University Family Development Study showed that providing quality early-childhood programs to families until children reached age 5 reduces the children's risk of delinquency 10 years later by 90 percent. It's no wonder that a recent survey of police chiefs found that 9 out of 10 said that ``America could sharply reduce crime if Government invested more'' in these early intervention programs. These programs are successful because children's experiences during their early years of life lay the foundation for their future development. Our failure to provide young children what they need during this period has long-term consequences and costs for America. Recent scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits for children, families, and our Nation. The electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain itself. Without a stimulating environment, the baby's brain suffers. At birth, a baby's brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons develops over time. Children who play very little or are rarely touched develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. Mr. President, reversing these problems later in life is far more difficult and costly. I want to discuss several examples. First, poverty seriously impairs young children's language development, math skills, IQ scores, and their later school completion. Poor young children also are at heightened risk of infant mortality, anemia, and stunted growth. Of the 12 million children under the age of 3 in the United States today, 3 million--25 percent--live in poverty. Second, three out of five mothers with children younger than 3 work, but one study found that 40 percent of the facilities at child care centers serving infants provided care of such poor quality as to actually jeopardize children's health, safety, or development. Third, in more than half of the States, one out of every four children between 19 months and 3 years of age is not fully immunized against common childhood diseases. Children who are not immunized are more likely to contact preventable diseases, which can cause long-term harm. And fourth, children younger than 3 make up 27 percent of the 1 million children who are determined to be abused or neglected each year. Of the 1,200 children who died from abuse and neglect in 1995, 85 percent were younger than 5 and 45 percent were younger than 1. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our Government expenditure patterns are inverse to the most important early development period for human beings. Although we know that early investment can dramatically reduce later remedial and social costs, currently our Nation spends more than $35 billion over 5 years on Federal programs for at-risk or delinquent youth and child welfare programs for children ages 12 to 18, but far less for children from birth to age 6. Today we seek to change our priorities and put children first. I am introducing the Early Childhood Development Act of 1997 to help empower local communities to provide essential interventions in the lives of our youngest at-risk children and their families. This legislation seeks to provide support to families by minimizing Government bureaucracy and maximizing local initiatives. We would provide additional funding to communities to expand the thousands of successful efforts for at-risk children ages zero to 6 such as those sponsored by the United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other less well- known grassroots organizations, as well as State initiatives such as Success By Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, the Parents as Teachers program in Missouri, Healthy Families in Indiana, and the Early Childhood Initiative in Pittsburgh, PA. All are short on resources. And nowhere do we adequately meet demand although we know that many States and local communities deliver efficient, cost-effective, and necessary services. Extending the reach of these successful programs to millions of children currently underserved will increase our national well-being and ultimately save billions of dollars. The second part of this bill would provide funding to States to help them provide a subsidy to all working poor families to purchase quality child care for infants, toddlers, and preschool children. We would not create a new program but would simply increase resources for the successful Child Care and Development Block Grant [CCDBG]. Child care for infants and toddlers is much more expensive than for older children since a higher level of care is necessary. Additional funding would also pay for improving the salaries and training level of child care workers, improving the facilities of child care centers and family child care homes, and providing enriched developmentally appropriate educational opportunities. Finally, the bill would increase funding for the Early Head Start Program. The successful Head Start Program provides quality services to 4 and 5 year-olds. The Early Head Start program, which currently is a modest program funded at $200 million annually, provides comprehensive child development and family support services to infants and toddlers. Expanding this program would help more young children receive the early assistance they need. I was delighted to be joined earlier today by Dr. Berry Brazelton and Rob Reiner to announce this bill. I want to thank Governor Dean of Vermont and Governor Romer of Colorado for supporting this legislation and the wide range of groups who support this legislation including the Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Coalition On Human Needs, Harvard Center for Children's Health, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Black Child Development Institute, Inc., National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rob Reiner of the I Am Your Child Campaign. Children need certain supports during their early critical years if they are to thrive and grow to be contributing adults. I look forward to working with Senator Bond and both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and ensure that all children arrive at school ready to learn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to introduce today the Early Childhood Development Act with Senator Bond. I want to thank Senator Bond for his leadership, both as a Governor who began the successful Parents as Teachers Program and for joining together in this bipartisan effort to develop a real world solution to real world problems. Mr. President, there is no issue more important in America than the urgent needs of young children. This country must rededicate itself to investing in children, an investment which will have tremendous returns. Early intervention can have a powerful effect on reducing Government welfare, health, criminal justice, and education expenditures in the long run. By taking steps now we can significantly reduce later destructive behavior such as school dropout, drug use, and criminal acts. A study of the High/Scope Foundation's Perry Preschool found that at-risk toddlers who received preschooling and a weekly home visit reduced the risk that these children would grow up to become chronic lawbreakers by a startling 80 percent. The Syracuse University Family Development Study showed that providing quality early-childhood programs to families until children reached age 5 reduces the children's risk of delinquency 10 years later by 90 percent. It's no wonder that a recent survey of police chiefs found that 9 out of 10 said that ``America could sharply reduce crime if Government invested more'' in these early intervention programs. These programs are successful because children's experiences during their early years of life lay the foundation for their future development. Our failure to provide young children what they need during this period has long-term consequences and costs for America. Recent scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits for children, families, and our Nation. The electrical activity of brain cells actually changes the physical structure of the brain itself. Without a stimulating environment, the baby's brain suffers. At birth, a baby's brain contains 100 billion neurons, roughly as many nerve cells as there are stars in the Milky Way. But the wiring pattern between these neurons develops over time. Children who play very little or are rarely touched develop brains 20 to 30 percent smaller than normal for their age. Mr. President, reversing these problems later in life is far more difficult and costly. I want to discuss several examples. First, poverty seriously impairs young children's language development, math skills, IQ scores, and their later school completion. Poor young children also are at heightened risk of infant mortality, anemia, and stunted growth. Of the 12 million children under the age of 3 in the United States today, 3 million--25 percent--live in poverty. Second, three out of five mothers with children younger than 3 work, but one study found that 40 percent of the facilities at child care centers serving infants provided care of such poor quality as to actually jeopardize children's health, safety, or development. Third, in more than half of the States, one out of every four children between 19 months and 3 years of age is not fully immunized against common childhood diseases. Children who are not immunized are more likely to contact preventable diseases, which can cause long-term harm. And fourth, children younger than 3 make up 27 percent of the 1 million children who are determined to be abused or neglected each year. Of the 1,200 children who died from abuse and neglect in 1995, 85 percent were younger than 5 and 45 percent were younger than 1. Unfortunately, Mr. President, our Government expenditure patterns are inverse to the most important early development period for human beings. Although we know that early investment can dramatically reduce later remedial and social costs, currently our Nation spends more than $35 billion over 5 years on Federal programs for at-risk or delinquent youth and child welfare programs for children ages 12 to 18, but far less for children from birth to age 6. Today we seek to change our priorities and put children first. I am introducing the Early Childhood Development Act of 1997 to help empower local communities to provide essential interventions in the lives of our youngest at-risk children and their families. This legislation seeks to provide support to families by minimizing Government bureaucracy and maximizing local initiatives. We would provide additional funding to communities to expand the thousands of successful efforts for at-risk children ages zero to 6 such as those sponsored by the United Way, Boys and Girls Clubs, and other less well- known grassroots organizations, as well as State initiatives such as Success By Six in Massachusetts and Vermont, the Parents as Teachers program in Missouri, Healthy Families in Indiana, and the Early Childhood Initiative in Pittsburgh, PA. All are short on resources. And nowhere do we adequately meet demand although we know that many States and local communities deliver efficient, cost-effective, and necessary services. Extending the reach of these successful programs to millions of children currently underserved will increase our national well-being and ultimately save billions of dollars. The second part of this bill would provide funding to States to help them provide a subsidy to all working poor families to purchase quality child care for infants, toddlers, and preschool children. We would not create a new program but would simply increase resources for the successful Child Care and Development Block Grant [CCDBG]. Child care for infants and toddlers is much more expensive than for older children since a higher level of care is necessary. Additional funding would also pay for improving the salaries and training level of child care workers, improving the facilities of child care centers and family child care homes, and providing enriched developmentally appropriate educational opportunities. Finally, the bill would increase funding for the Early Head Start Program. The successful Head Start Program provides quality services to 4 and 5 year-olds. The Early Head Start program, which currently is a modest program funded at $200 million annually, provides comprehensive child development and family support services to infants and toddlers. Expanding this program would help more young children receive the early assistance they need. I was delighted to be joined earlier today by Dr. Berry Brazelton and Rob Reiner to announce this bill. I want to thank Governor Dean of Vermont and Governor Romer of Colorado for supporting this legislation and the wide range of groups who support this legislation including the Association of Jewish Family & Children's Agencies, Boys and Girls Clubs of America, Children's Defense Fund, Child Welfare League of America, Coalition On Human Needs, Harvard Center for Children's Health, Jewish Council for Public Affairs, National Black Child Development Institute, Inc., National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA, Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, and Rob Reiner of the I Am Your Child Campaign. Children need certain supports during their early critical years if they are to thrive and grow to be contributing adults. I look forward to working with Senator Bond and both sides of the aisle to pass this legislation and ensure that all children arrive at school ready to learn. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for his generous comments and also for his substantive comments. He has been dealing with this issue for a long period of time. As chairman of the committee of jurisdiction with respect to the environment, as well as a Senator from a coastal State, a neighbor of ours, he is very knowledgeable about these impacts. He serves also on the observer group. So I appreciate his comments particularly and his leadership on it. I will just say to my friend from Rhode Island, when I was in this discussion with the British minister just last week, he was quite dumbstruck, in fact, that Senators here are still questioning the science or that some people want to make an issue out of the science. There is almost a universal European acceptance among those in Government of the science. They really have stepped beyond that debate. The debate now is not over the science. The debate is how do you really deal with this the best. The Senator from Rhode Island pointed out Ford Motor Co. Let me just share with my colleague the environmental commitment statement by the insurance industry. The insurance industry in America is increasingly concerned about this. Here is what they said: Based on the current status of climate research and on their experience as insurers and reinsurers, the member companies of the UNEP-Insurance Industry Initiative conclude that . . . Man-made climate change will lead to shifts in atmospheric and ocean circulation patterns. This will probably increase the likelihood of extreme weather events in certain areas. Such effects carry the risk of dramatically increased property damage, with serious implications for property insurers and reinsurers . . . We are convinced that in dealing with climate change risks, it is important to recognize the precautionary principle, in that it is not possible to quantify anticipated economic and social impacts of climate change fully before taking action. Research is needed to reduce uncertainty but cannot eliminate it entirely . . . We insist that in accordance with the precautionary principle, the negotiations for the Framework Convention on Climate Change must achieve early, substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. So I think that increasingly businesses are aware of the fact that the costs of not doing something are the real measurement here. I thank the distinguished chairman for bringing that to the Senate's attention. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week, representatives from over 160 nations are meeting in Bonn, Germany, for the final negotiating session prior to the climate change conference scheduled in Kyoto in December. It is a critical meeting, the culmination of several years of international cooperation on this extraordinarily important global issue. Over the past several months I have had an opportunity to discuss global warming with scientists and representatives from the United States and abroad and, indeed, we have had one brief discussion on the Senate floor in the context of the Byrd-Hagel amendment. Last week, I met in London with a number of officials of the Government of Great Britain, but most importantly on this subject with Foreign Minister Robin Cook, to discuss our mutual concerns about the climate change problem and how best to address this issue from a global perspective. As our U.S. negotiators continue their work in Bonn and the President finalizes the U.S. position for the Kyoto conference, I wanted to share with my colleagues some views on the science of global warming, on the international process, the U.S. role, and the next steps that the United States and others should undertake to address this issue in a responsible manner. Last July, I joined with Senator Byrd and others in the Chamber to discuss global warming and to debate Senate Resolution 98 which addressed some of the Senate position on the Kyoto treaty. The Byrd- Hagel resolution called for the United States to support binding commitments to reduce greenhouse gases only if: One, all nations, developed and developing, participate in addressing this global problem; and two, if the commitment did not adversely impact the U.S. economy. In addition, the resolution created a bipartisan Senate observer group of which I am pleased to be a member. Our task is to continue to monitor this process. I supported the Byrd-Hagel resolution, Mr. President, which passed the Senate 95-0 after we worked out in colloquy some of the interpretations of definitions contained therein. I supported it because I believe that there has to be a universal effort to tackle this ever-growing problem, and that the United States, while taking a lead role, need not jeopardize its economic viability in order to meet our international obligations. The resolution language, in my judgment, provides enough flexibility to address the concerns of growing economies of the developing world even as we encourage them to join in this global effort. The resolution was silent, however, as to the science of global warming. It addressed only the U.S. role in the Kyoto negotiations. During the debate over the resolution, there was some discussion by a few Senators over their interpretation individually of the science. But there was no broad debate about the science, and there was certainly in the resolution no judgment by the U.S. Senate whatsoever as to the foundations of science which might or might not be applied to the negotiations in Kyoto. From the statements in the Record by the resolution's chief sponsor, Senator Byrd, it is clear that he agrees, as I and others do, that the prospect of human-induced global warming as an accepted thesis is beyond debate, and that there are many adverse impacts that can be anticipated as a consequence of those theories in fact being found to be true. We are joined by many of our colleagues in thinking that there is sufficient scientific consensus that human activities are exacerbating climate changes. The vast majority of scientists and policymakers who have examined this issue carefully have concluded that the science is sound and that it is time to take additional steps through the established international theory to address this issue in a more systematic way. A small but extremely vociferous minority continue to assert that the science is not yet convincing. They advocate a wait-and-see approach. They believe that continued review and inaction is best for the U.S. economy and for Americans in general. Given the money that the very vociferous minority has been expending in trying to promote their view, and given the fact that shortly we will be engaged in some discussions based on the factual foundations of this issue, I would like to address the issue of science for a few moments on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, the vast majority of the scientific community--the vast majority of those who have taken time to make a dispassionate, apolitical, nonideological determination based on lifetimes of work, and certainly on a lifetime-acquired discipline in their particular areas--the vast majority of consensus of those who have been so engaged is that the science regarding global warming is compelling and that to do nothing would be the most dangerous of all options. In the late 1980's, a number of our Senate colleagues--among them Vice President Gore, State Department Counselor Tim Wirth, Senators John Heinz and Fritz Hollings--and I, and a few others became increasingly concerned about the potential threat of global warming. It was at that time that I joined as an original cosponsor of Senator Hollings' bill, the National Global Change Research Act, which attracted support from many Members still serving in this body, including Senators Stevens, McCain, Cochran, Inouye, and Gorton. After numerous hearings and roundtable discussions, this legislation to create the global change research program at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration became law in 1990. As a Senator from a coastal State I take very seriously parochial implications of global warming. As a United States Senator and a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am also concerned about the crafting of a workable international response that treats all parties-- including the United States --fairly. I have stated that I would be happy to engage any of my colleagues in the debate on the science of climate change here on the Senate floor, or elsewhere. And I have sought on numerous occasions--as yet not successfully--to try to get an adequate airing of the science within the Senate observer group. And it is my hope that, before that group reports to the Senate, a broad-based review of the science will be undertaken in a bipartisan, nonpolitical way. But, Mr. President, before we even proceed further with that analysis, I want to take this opportunity to at least lay out some precursor truths with respect to the science as we know it. Whether by nature or experience, we know that scientists are a fundamentally cautious group of people. That is why I find it particularly compelling that over 2,000 scientists who participated in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change--the most comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed assessment of any environmental problem ever undertaken--concluded that global climate change is currently under way. The 1995 IPCC report concludes that the Earth has already warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the last century, and that ``the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.'' The IPCC estimates that the global surface air temperature will increase another 2 to 6.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. Their ``best guess'' is that we will experience warming of about 3.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. That would be a faster rate of climate change than any experienced during the last 10,000 years of the history of this planet. And we have to recognize that the human history as we have recorded it and, therefore, understand its impact on ourselves and current human endeavor is within a span of about 8,000 years. The conclusion that the observed warming trend is not simply a natural fluctuation is affirmed by the research of several institutions. Basing their conclusions on climate model calculations, scientists at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, concluded that the warming of the Earth over the past 30 years goes far beyond natural variations. Indeed, there is a judgment that there is only a 1-in-40 chance of that variation being natural. So we are dealing with a 1-in-40 prospect in terms of odds. The United States and other governments have been collecting at ground-based and ocean-based sites global surface temperature measurements since the year 1880. Remarkably the 11 warmest years this century have all occurred since 1980, with 1995 the warmest on record. Some will argue that there are discrepancies between our long-term surface record and recent satellite observations. But that fact--by again nonideological dispassionate and nonpolitical scientists--has been determined to be not surprising at all because the two techniques--measurement at the surface and measurement by satellite-- are entirely different. They measure temperature at different parts of the Earth's system--the surface and various layers of the atmosphere. In addition, other factors, such as the presence of airborne materials from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo volcano, affect each record in a very different way. The natural ``greenhouse effect'' has made life on Earth possible. Without it, our planet would be about 60 degrees colder. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other trace gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, trap the solar heat, and they slow the loss of that solar heat by the reradiation back into space. That is a natural process. But with industrialization and with population growth, greenhouse gas emissions from human activities have consistently increased. Anthropogenic climate changes, most importantly the burning of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and natural gas--and deforestation, have tipped the very delicate balance of nature. We all know that the forests of the planet play a critical role in the recycling of carbon dioxide. The forests in the Amazon, all through Central and Latin America, and all through Asia have been disappearing in entirely measurable and discernible ways. As we have seen by satellite photography over the last 15 or 20 years, all of the areas of the Earth's green are beginning to shrink in those satellite photographs; we understand that we are diminishing our capacity to do the recycling of the CO2. Therefore, more gas is trapped. More gases have the impact of diminishing the amount of reradiation that takes place. This natural climate variability alone, including the effect of volcanic eruptions and solar variability--that is, sunspot activity--would not have changed carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. However, the manmade addition, presently about 3 percent of annual natural emissions, is sufficient to exceed what is known to be the balancing effects of ``carbon sinks.'' As a result, carbon dioxide is gradually accumulated in the atmosphere, until, at present, its concentration is 30 percent above preindustrial levels. Existing data of other greenhouse gases show increasing concentrations of methane, nitrous oxide, and chlorofluorocarbons over recent decades. While ice core data show that concentrations of methane and nitrous oxide have increased in the past few centuries, after having been relatively constant for thousands of years, chlorofluorocarbons are absent from deep-ice cores because they have no natural sources and were not manufactured before 1930. So I want to emphasize for those who try to doubt the science, for those who come and say there is no indicator of this change and that we have only been recording the temperature since 1880, the fact is that both in the Arctic and the Antarctic we have accumulations of thousands of years--tens of thousands of years--of ice. And we have to be able to bore down into that ice. In the bores that we bring out--just as we have tested and found geological formations which have allowed us to drill for gas--we have been able to come up with ice cores. And as the scientists look at those ice cores, they have been able to measure the degree of carbon dioxide that was trapped in those ice cores. By measuring that, and, indeed, by measuring the absence of chlorofluorocarbons, we have been able to trace thousands of years of climatic activity and change that we otherwise would not have knowledge of. That is what has given us this capacity to make a determination about the rapidity with which changes are taking place today relative to what we knew or can discern was taking place thousands of years ago. While we have no control over sun spots or volcanoes, we, obviously, can control human activities. Then the question will be, ``Well, why should we do that? What is the showing that somehow this really represents a danger sufficient to require a response from Government?'' Well, the essential issue here, Mr. President, is one of compounding emissions over time. We know that the emissions we put into the atmosphere today have a life that goes on and on and on. It is like nuclear material that has a half-life. So does this material have a half-life. And the fact is that, even if we were to stop our activity today, what is already in the atmosphere will continue to do the damage that it does. And the models have to measure the rate at which we might be able to reduce today in order to guarantee that you have turned off the spigot sufficiently to be able to control what will happen in the future. But anyone who follows the stock market or even your back account, obviously, understands the miracle of compounded interest. It means that a small amount set aside becomes a big amount over time. That is what is happening to the Earth's accumulation of greenhouse gases. Many of these gases reside in the atmosphere for years to come-- hundreds to thousands of years. Even constant emissions of the gases can cause atmospheric concentrations to build up rapidly. So, unlike the stock market, when it comes to emissions, the small amounts don't necessarily bring a miracle. But they could bring enormous calamities. So why would we care if the Earth warms a few degrees? I have actually heard people say it really doesn't matter that much if all of a sudden North Dakota or South Dakota became a little more attractive, and they don't have as long a winter, or somehow you have a longer hiking season in a particular State. Well, Mr. President, it isn't that simple. It just isn't reduced to that kind of simplistic judgment about the overall impacts. The IPCC scientific assessment of climate change estimated that the average surface temperature will increase by 1 to 3.5 degrees with an associated rise in sea level of 6 to 37 inches. These changes are projected to lead to a number of potentially serious consequences with incidence of heat waves, floods, droughts, hurricanes, and other extreme events affecting human health and natural ecosystems. Americans will experience more health problems and there will be an increase in health-induced deaths from future warming. Heat waves of the type in the 1995 Chicago heat wave which killed 465 people will occur more frequently, and increased warming will exacerbate existing air quality problems such as smog that aggravate asthma and allergic disorders, especially in children and the elderly. Warmer climates breed diseases such as malaria, dengue and yellow fevers, encephalitis, and cholera due to the expansive range of mosquitoes as a consequence of increased warmer climates and other disease-carrying organisms. One key aspect of climate change that is important to remember is the slow capacity of any corrective action to have an impact. Harvard professor and member of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Dr. John Holdren, shared his analogy at the White House Round Table on Climate Change. He said: The world's energy-economic system is a lot like a supertanker, very hard to steer and with very bad brakes * * * and we know from the science that the supertanker is heading for a reef * * * it's a bad idea to keep on a course of full speed ahead. The oceans are going to continue to expand for several centuries even after the temperatures stabilize. We are currently dealing with rising sea levels that are already eroding beaches and wetlands, inundating low-lying areas and increasing the vulnerability of coastal areas to flooding from storm surges and intense rainfall. We know how costly droughts, flood control, and erosion mitigation efforts can be to the taxpayers. We constantly, every year, are facing requests from one community or another to do a beach-erosion project or to undertake some kind of erosion mitigation, and we spend literally millions of dollars in insurance as a consequence of those anticipated problems already. Damages from the southern plains drought of 1996 were estimated at $4 billion; the 1993 Mississippi River flood damages were $10 billion to $20 billion; the Pacific Northwest floods of the winter of 1996-97 were $3 billion; the 1997 Ohio River flood was nearly $1 billion; and the 1997 river flood in the Northern Plains was another $2 billion. And this is just the impact of the changes perceived in the United States in the last few years. Scientists have not definitively said that any one of these events I just listed is absolutely tied to global warming. And I am not going to suggest that that is in fact true if they are not willing to suggest that that there is that linkage. But the scientists have issued a warning. The scientists have issued a warning--not the politicians, the scientists. And their warning is that these disasters collectively show precisely what we are likely to see if we do not reverse the current trend lines of global warming. And we will see them with greater frequency, with more destruction under global warming. The areas of greatest vulnerability are those where quality and quantity of water are already problems such as the arid and semiarid regions in the United States and the world. If warming trends were to continue, then water scarcity in the Middle East and Africa will become even more pronounced, exacerbating tensions among countries that depend on water supplies that originate outside of their borders. Another key area of concern will be the dramatic alteration of geographic distributions of vegetation. The composition of one-third of the Earth's forests would undergo major changes as a result of a doubling of preindustrial carbon dioxide levels. Over the next 100 years, the range of some North American forest species will shift by as much as 300 miles to the north, far faster than the forests can migrate naturally. For example, in my region of the country, New England, we could lose the most economically important species, the sugar maple. Other areas of the country would be hit economically as well. The tourism industry, for instance, surrounding the Glacier National Park could literally evaporate along with glaciers which we already know have receded steadily for decades. Since the park's founding, over 70 percent of the glaciers have already melted. Model projections indicate that all of the park's glaciers will disappear by the year 2030 unless temperatures begin to cool. One-third to one-half of the world's mountain glacier mass could disappear by the year 2100, thus eliminating a natural reservoir of water for many areas. Let me give an example. In Lima, Peru, the entire water supply for 10 million people depends on the annual summer melt from a glacier that is now in rapid retreat. These are just some of the predictions, predictions made by scientists, predictions made by various models where they have taken the data which scientists have agreed on--not speculated about, but agreed on. The facts about global warming are beyond reasonable scientific doubt, and they ought to be beyond reasonable policymaking doubt. Mr. John Browne, CEO of British Petroleum, in a recent speech at Stanford University said: The time to consider the policy dimensions of climate change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point. That is the CEO of British Petroleum saying that they have reached the point of concluding that linkage exists. Efforts to rein in and reduce manmade contributions of such emissions are now warranted. Worst case scenarios under current business-as-usual practices are catastrophic. So let me turn for a moment to the international efforts and the role of the United States at this point. In 1992, it was precisely because of those scientific conclusions that I have just enumerated that President Bush at the Earth Summit in Rio signed a climate-change agreement, and it was ratified later that year by the Senate. That agreement pledged that nations would reduce their gas emissions to their 1990 levels by the year 2000. Regrettably, the vast majority of nations, including the United States, have failed to achieve this goal. Today, the United States has increased emissions about 8 percent above 1990 levels. Much of that increase has been tied to our economic expansion. However, it should also be noted that industry during this remarkable growth period was also engaged in a voluntary program to reduce emissions. While not achieving its objective completely, the voluntary effort did meet 70 percent of the original targets at a time when the American economy grew and wherein the American jobs machine was rolling along at as high a rate as we have seen in recent years. The relative success of voluntary industry effort ought to encourage confidence that more comprehensive efforts under a global regime can result in greater progress at far less cost than Cassandras allowed for. However, the question is now for all countries, developed and developing, to step forward to support binding commitments to reach an acceptable level of human-induced emissions. That is why the United States is engaged in negotiating a legally binding climate-change agreement to be finalized in Kyoto this December. Our challenge is to shape an agreement which sets tough, realistic global emission standards and goals while harnessing the market forces to lower costs, foster technological development, and ensure economic growth. The climate change problem is global. It requires a solution, obviously, that includes a global response--participation from all nations, industrialized countries and those countries in the developing world. The best approach is to establish a global economic incentive program in which the free market and not Government intervention is driving the reductions. The goal of universal participation via an international treaty with binding commitments ought to be undertaken now, not with delay, not with an effort to try to have subterfuge diminish what we can accomplish in Kyoto. The United States, with 22 percent of global emissions, is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases. And today the industrial world comprises nearly three-quarters of all of the global emissions. But that does not mean that we are the only ones who should deal with this problem. The reason for that is clear. China is currently the world's second largest emitter, and it is expected to displace the United States as the largest emitter by the year 2015. Over the next few decades, 90 percent of the world's population growth will take place in the developing world. Given the projected economic and population growth statistics of China and other quickly developing countries such as India, Mexico and Brazil, the developing world will exceed the industrialized world in emissions by the year 2035. Universal participation, therefore, does not mean we have to all begin at the same time. It does not mean you have to embrace the exact same commitment at the exact same implementation moment. Clearly, if one country is doing more than another, there is room for us to be able to negotiate an agreement where we all meet at the appropriate point. But it does mean that it is quite reasonable for the industrialized nations, those nations that have put most of the greenhouse pollution into the atmosphere, initially to take the lead, as long as in so doing they do not simply fall into a trap of disadvantaging themselves economically. A scenario where the industrialized world acts alone will not be enough to prevent the costly implications of global warming in the future. I want to emphasize that. The developing nations cannot go to Kyoto and suggest that it is up to the developed world simply to bear the burden of reductions, because even if we reduce to the greatest degree possible, we cannot alone avert the problems that will come from global warming. It is absolutely essential that China, India, Brazil, Mexico, and other countries join in the effort with an understanding that we are moving down this road together. Currently, many of these developing nations are not inclined to join in an international treaty. Some believe it is not in their immediate economic interests to do so. Others believe that as long as the biggest contributors to the problem, the industrialized nations, are not taking sufficient effective steps to cut back on greenhouse pollution, it is not in the interest of their nations to do so either. One could well understand how they would make that kind of determination. Some of them cite the language of the 1995 ``Berlin Mandate,'' calling on the Annex I countries, the developed countries, to be the ones to complete a treaty with binding commitments by December 1997 but to leave excluded the developing world from an established binding reduction target. Let me say that in my reading of the ``Berlin Mandate,'' I do not believe that we are precluded from proceeding to Kyoto in an effort to come up with a two-stage arrangement which would have the developed countries enter into an agreement while simultaneously bringing the developed countries along. I don't believe it is in any nation's interest to thwart international efforts to reduce greenhouse gases in as expeditious and as economically feasible a manner as possible. The remaining option is the option of doing nothing, and nothing would, in most people's judgment, be ultimate mutual devastation. The only viable solution is a global treaty which provides economic incentives for all nations. I believe such a treaty can be crafted, one that would include all nations but permit flexibility in the targets and flexibility in the timing of compliance for developing nations, while at the same time requiring all countries to agree to make legally binding commitments by a date certain. If the United States signs such a treaty, it would be reasonable for the President to refrain from transmitting that treaty to the Senate until the developing world signs its binding commitments. In that way we can make Kyoto a success, coming up with the binding agreements necessary but still maintain and keep good faith with the approach we have thus far deemed to be the roadmap to the achievement of this treaty. In this Chamber I previously shared my concerns with a component of the European proposal as it currently stands. The Europeans continue to argue for a treaty that would enable the European Union to secure an exclusive bubble emissions policy. This is tantamount to a regional emissions trading program. They want Europe to be contained under one bubble, whereby they can trade their emissions within the European bubble, a license, in effect, to increase emissions in some European countries by relying on the trendline decreases that are already in place in others. Such a posture is helpful only to the European Union. It fails to address the essential need to engage those rapidly growing economies of the developing world, and it excludes other industrialized countries which could be left to meet target reductions in a more costly manner. The European proposal would provide the Europeans with a competitive advantage over the United States by creating this collective emissions cap as opposed to country-by-country reduction targets. Some European countries could actually increase their emissions by up to 40 percent. This approach, coupled with their opposition to joint implementation with developing nations, seems to be aimed almost exclusively at beating the United States out of economically sensible emissions reduction activities in Eastern Europe, Russia, the Far East, and elsewhere. I think they should know that is not acceptable under most people's definition of fairness. Therefore, it is my feeling that we should approach Kyoto in the following way. I believe President Clinton and his advisers have been developing a U.S. position for these negotiations that moves mostly in the right direction. I have shared views with the administration over the course of these last months and in recent weeks, and there are a number of different options that are currently rumored to be under consideration by the President. It is my hope the President will announce a U.S. position that is aggressive in curbing the projected business-as-usual trendline. I believe the President ought to press for a proposal that will seek at least a target of 2010, rather than the outyear options of 2020 or 2030 that we have heard discussed. The Europeans, given the protection of their European bubble proposal, have proposed a 15 percent reduction below the 1990 levels by the year 2010. Perhaps without the bubble this level may prove to be too ambitious to achieve without significant harm to their economies. However, I believe it is realistic for the United States and other nations to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2010, remembering, of course, that our original goal was to do so by the year 2000. With additional economic incentives such as early credits for reductions and joint implementation and a market-oriented emissions trading system, perhaps additional reductions could be undertaken. I believe also that the centerpiece of the U.S. negotiating position should be a worldwide emissions trading program. Emissions trading is an important market mechanism that will benefit all countries including the United States. But it is not only advantageous to U.S. businesses. It will provide developing countries with incentives to sign up to binding legal commitments that are absolutely essential to a workable treaty. The market-based approach of emissions trading is a sensible one that helps businesses lower costs by promoting emissions reductions and by giving the industry flexibility to decide how they will go about reducing pollution. We know an emissions trading system could reduce the cost of emissions controls dramatically, afford American industry great opportunities to do what we do best, which is to innovate, to develop cheaper, better ways of getting the job done. And, if the system includes joint implementation with developing countries, providing jobs here at home in the well-paying technology export sectors that serve the booming demands in rapidly industrializing nations, we would be well served. Experiences in States such as Massachusetts or California or Texas or Florida, States which have invested in technology and which have built on their combined technology bases and education bases--those experiences have proven where we invest in technology in order to solve some of these problems, we inevitably not only create jobs for Americans but we wind up creating an export capacity, because we are the leading, cutting edge of technology and we wind up greatly reducing the costs that the original estimates are based on. If you look at the SO2 reduction programs in this country, I remember the automobile and other industries arguing it was going to be upward of $1,000 per ton to reduce. In fact, because of the technology advances, the costs have come in around $90. Therefore, the opportunity, by virtue of pushing our technology and advancing our capacity to transfer that technology to the developing countries, can assist all of us in the effort to create jobs and to provide for the gains necessary to be able to meet these targets. The United States should contain in this effort, along with the rest of the industrialized countries, a significant technology transfer component in order to assist in achieving this treaty and its goals. Economically, the best time to establish an international trading program is now. Many developing countries are currently investing in long-term energy programs. By excluding any discussion of joint implementation with developing countries and early credits for reductions prior to implementation of such a system, important incentives to encourage developing countries to begin shifting their development trajectory to a cleaner path would be lost. U.S. industry and U.S. competitiveness are the winners of an international trading system, wholly apart from any environmental gains. Environmentally, we need to get the trading program going as soon as possible, and world events are escalating the seriousness of the problem. The terrible fires in Indonesia and the havoc that that conflagration continues to wreak on the people of South Asia are additional testaments to an urgent need for a global framework that provides powerful market incentives for environmentally friendlier behavior. Emissions from these fires are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and destroying forests that could be protected and harvested in a much more sustainable manner. A Kyoto protocol that provides credits for protecting forests that sequester carbon dioxide, and an income stream that would potentially be available to those who husband the forest, would be an important step for the nations and the peoples of the worlds. A model for such a regime is the SO2 trading program contained in the 1990 Clean Air Act. That program, as I mentioned a moment ago, really contradicted what had been predicted by the industry. According to the Wall Street Journal, some initial industry estimates for those SO2 reductions were $1,500 per ton but which actually came in at $90 per ton, which was 6 percent of the original doom forecast of the industry. I would like to emphasize one point about the sulfur program that is key to its success. In the sulfur trading program, the Government has resisted the temptation to intervene in the market and provide price props or cushions, or to print new allowances and sell them at a set price. I understand that one option before the President is exactly such an approach. I believe other Senators would join me and strongly urge him to resist such intervention here. When the Government intervenes in market trading it inevitably drives those prices up. My recommendation to the President would be that any proposal that would make companies pay the Government for additional carbon permits is likely to be regarded--in this institution, anyway--as a thinly veiled tax, and would, frankly, not receive favorable reception. I urge the President to let the market for greenhouse emissions reductions do what the markets do best, which is to spur companies to develop better products at a lower cost. I am very optimistic that the President will ultimately make a judgment that would be opposed to that alternative, significant intervention in the marketplace. A second goal should be a framework that brings all countries into this effort at the beginning while allowing for the developing countries to initiate their reduction efforts at a different rate than the industrialized world. I think this is an essential component of any realistic approach to this effort. Even without a universal emission reductions program, the Montreal Protocol, signed by President Reagan during his second term, called for the phaseout of chlorofluorocarbons. As with the SO 2 estimates, the CFC reduction costs were grossly exaggerated by certain industry sectors. Market-type mechanisms in the Montreal Protocol and the U.S. domestic implementation program drove prices down, with the result that companies were spurred to bring online CFC substitutes that proved cheaper and cleaner. A more inclusive treaty, covering all greenhouse gas emissions, sources and sinks would produce even more economic and environmental progress. A final goal is to recognize the opportunity presented by technology to help in this effort. The United States is now a world leader in the high tech industries of pollution prevention, abatement and control. With a global emissions reduction treaty, the faster we invest in new pollution prevention and energy conservation technologies, the faster we will achieve emissions reductions and the quicker we will gain market share in the international arena. This means more jobs for U.S. workers and more revenues for U.S. companies. If we don't, then someone else will. I would simply cite the example of what took place in the two decades ago. At the end of the 1970's, President Carter had made a commitment to alternative and renewable fuel research. Regrettably, when the Reagan administration arrived in 1980, support for the institute in Colorado was withdrawn. So it was that over a 10-year period of time the great lead that the United States had built up in photovoltaics and in alternatives and renewables was lost. Today, as the former Soviet bloc countries of Eastern Europe come online in their effort to try to reduce the grotesque pollution that is one of the longest legacies of the Communist rule, they are turning to the Japanese and to the Germans for the technology where we once were the leader. But since we withdrew our own investment, we ceased to be that leader. So I believe there is, in this effort, an enormous economic opportunity for the United States for the future. At home, we need to consider ways to leverage our technological leadership through domestic tax provisions, such as a zero capital gains tax rate, or a specifically targeted investment tax credit for companies that invest in pollution prevention and energy conservation, or quicker depreciation of investment in such technologies. I repeat, a zero capital gains tax rate or faster depreciation for those companies that invest in energy saving, energy conservation and pollution prevention. I anticipate, Mr. President, that following the announcement the President makes regarding a U.S. proposal, regardless of what that proposal entails, there will be a number of colleagues on the floor of the Senate denouncing it, arguing that the science is not yet there or that the economic assumptions are unreliable. Some will argue it is unnecessary and too costly for the United States to participate in an international treaty. On the contrary. I believe the evidence from scientists is overwhelming, that it is far too costly to sit on the sidelines and do nothing. Mr. President, 2,500 leading economists, including 8 Nobel laureates tell us: For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American living standards, and these measures may, in fact, improve U.S. production in the long term. I believe that if we heed the warnings, if we plan for the future now, if we avoid allowing this to become the political football that it might, if we seek the involvement of all nations, we can secure a healthy planet for ourselves and for our children and for future generations, and we can exercise our responsibility as U.S. Senators in the way that we ought to. I yield the floor. Mr. CHAFEE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

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

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me speak rather quickly as to where we find ourselves. Notwithstanding the comments just heard with respect to the desire for campaign finance reform, there is one simple fact that the country is about to witness. The U.S. Senate is about to see campaign finance reform stay off the calendar and only come back, not as a matter of automatic debate on the floor of the Senate, only come back if the majority leader decides he wants to bring it back. Effectively, we are witnessing 45 Democrat U.S. Senators prepared to vote today for McCain-Feingold, for campaign finance reform, and we have at least 4 Republican Senators prepared to vote for it today, and we are being denied the ability to be able to have that up-or-down vote on campaign finance reform. That is the bottom line. That is what is happening here. The fact is that we have had an awful lot of straws sort of put up as the reason for doing this--people hiding behind the first amendment, people hiding behind the notion that incumbency is at stake. Incumbents get most of the money today. The current system protects incumbents. Under McCain-Feingold and under the Supreme Court, both have said you can't limit issue advocacy. There is nothing in this bill that restrains the capacity of any American to go out and talk about an issue. There is something in this bill that tries to say we are going to draw a distinction between that which is really advocacy for an issue and that which is trying to elect or defeat a candidate. The bottom line, Mr. President, is here is what this fight is about. We have a group of people who believe that their hold on power and their ability to be elected is dependent on the money that they spend. They are seeking a partisan political advantage in whatever structure they try to form as campaign finance reform. Now, that is not new here. I have seen that on this side of the aisle, too. My colleagues are fairly--and I underscore ``fairly''--concerned about whether or not, if they are limited in some regard, people who oppose them--in some instances labor--are going to have an unfair advantage. We ought to have a fairer playing field. But what Senator Snowe and Senator Jeffords offered us as we tried to negotiate was not a fair playing field. We wound up with labor having to have its members give their written consent as to what they would allow their dues to do. But a member of the National Rifle Association, a stockholder of AT&T whose money also winds up going into political purposes, would not be treated the same. So, in effect, we will see a failure today because the Republicans decided they wanted to try to legislate an unfair advantage to themselves. We are simply not going to allow that to happen. It is a tragedy for the American people that partisan efforts are going to take precedence over what is an overwhelming desire by the American people to see their democracy protected and not to have it increasingly become a dollar-ocracy or whatever you want to call it. Increasingly, this system is broken. Everybody knows it. For the Senate simply to sort of fall prisoner to a parliamentary process of partisanship rather than a genuine effort to try to come to agreement, I think, does not serve any of us well here. I regret that. I regret it for the institution. For the 13 years I have been here, we have been trying to deal with campaign finance reform. One side or the other is always trying to find that advantage. We have shown how you can do it fairly. Everybody in the country, I think, has a pretty good definition of that fairness. I hope my colleagues will recognize as they go home that their citizens and constituents are really fed up and want change.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is it possible to get an extra 2 minutes?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, under the regular order, the Senator from Maine cannot yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to express my support for the conference agreement on H.R. 2169, the Transportation Appropriations bill for fiscal year 1998. I would like to express particular gratitude to the diligent efforts of Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey who has a keen understanding of the need to modernize and upgrade the aging transportation infrastructure of the congested Northeast. I also want to thank Senator Shelby of Alabama for his leadership this year on transportation matters. This bill is very important for Massachusetts and for the Nation. For Massachusetts, it contains funding for several important projects. I am very pleased that the conference report provides $3 million for the Worcester Union Station Intermodal Center. This facility, which has been recognized as a model for both urban revitalization and transportation planning, will be situated in a newly renovated Union Station and will provide convenient regional access to commuter rail, Amtrak, inter-city and intra-city buses, taxis, airport shuttles, bikes and private passenger vehicles for Worcester County's 710,000 residents. I am also pleased that the report provides continued funding--$1 million in fiscal year 1998--for the restoration of historic Union Station in Springfield, MA, as an active intermodal center. Once restored, Springfield Union Station will provide an essential gateway to the Pioneer Valley to alleviate congestion and better serve the local and interstate bus and Amtrak passenger traffic which is growing by 9 percent annually. This facility will also help connect the city's two largest job districts which are currently divided by disjointed traffic and development patterns. With the Federal funds provided last year and over $1 million in local funds, the city has quickly moved forward on project planning, land assembly and demolition of a deteriorated adjacent building. Indeed, the State legislature has approved $10 million to date for this important project. I welcome the Conference Committee's support in the form of $2 million in funding for the Urban Ring transit system in the Boston region. The need for such a system arises from the strongly radial structure of Greater Boston's existing transit system. It consists of spokes emanating from the downtown core to neighborhoods of Boston and cities and towns throughout eastern Massachusetts. With an Urban Ring transit route, Massachusetts will begin to link these spokes in an arc around downtown, providing easier access to centers of economic growth outside the core and reducing congestion in the subway system by allowing commuters the opportunity to travel between home and workplace without the necessity of traveling into the downtown area and back out again. I appreciate the Conference Committee's continued strong support for the South Boston Piers Transitway project, a vital element in the Commonwealth's State Implementation Plan required under the Clean Air Act. The Transitway, expected to carry approximately 6.4 million riders annually, will be integrated with the extensive network of transit, commuter rail, and bus services now available at Boston's South Station and will catalyze the development of the South Boston Piers area which has the highest potential for development and job creation in the City of Boston. I'm also pleased that the conference report includes $875,000 for the Franklin County Visitors Information System. In western Massachusetts, many small, renowned cultural and historical museums and attractions are spread over distances where the lack of an effective road system hinders potential visitors. The Franklin County Chamber of Commerce, in conjunction with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, hopes to develop a guidance system that makes use of the latest interactive kiosk technologies and mapping capabilities simultaneously to improve the road network for western Massachusetts and enhance access to the multiplicity of community resources. I support the Conference Committee's decision to provide greater funding for Amtrak than the amount of funding in the Senate bill. However, it is my hope that the Senate and the House will devote extraordinary efforts over the next few weeks to enact Amtrak reauthorization legislation so that the capital funding set aside during budget reconciliation can be released and spent. Only then will Amtrak receive sufficient capital funding over the next several years. It is no secret that the year-to-year battles over capital funding for Amtrak have greatly inhibited Amtrak's ability to operate an efficient, and financially stable national passenger rail service. Congress must act on this matter as soon as possible. I also support the Conference Committee's decision to provide $4.8 billion in Federal transit assistance. Though ISTEA has not yet been reauthorized, I strongly believe that making investment in public transportation a top priority will bear rich economic, social and environmental dividends for the Nation. The Conference Committee is to be commended for the fiscal year 1998 Coast Guard budget. This budget represents a significant increase from fiscal year 1997 funding and certainly represents Federal dollars well spent. But I must add that my enthusiasm is somewhat tempered by my deep concern regarding the current state of resource allocation and usage within the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard's responsibilities have grown with the many new fisheries enforcement requirements that came with the passage of the Sustainable Fisheries Act last year and continuing pressure in the constant battle in the war on drugs. I am concerned that, in the effort to cover all of these responsibilities, we may be making tradeoffs that may come back to haunt us later. As you well know, I represent a coastal State that has a 200-year- plus history of reliance on the Coast Guard. For that reason, I probably have a better understanding than many Senators of the value of the Coast Guard to the citizens of our Nation that make a living in the coastal regions or on the high seas. In fact, the Massachusetts coastal zone contributes 53.3 percent, or $70.7 billion, to the state economy. Further, there are over 10,000 fishing families in New England that depend on the Coast Guard for their safety and are in fact viewed as their ``real'' guardian angels. One of many concerns that I have for these families is that with the recent catastrophic failure of the New England groundfish fishery that our fishermen are traveling further, in rougher weather, to catch fewer fish. Additionally, because of the personal financial hardship that has resulted from the collapse of the fishery, I fear that they are cutting corners to save a dollar such as not outfitting their boats and crews with the vital safety equipment that are required by law. I am concerned that we may cutting corners at their expense. We may be at a point where we need to stop and reassess the current condition of the Coast Guard. As we continue to examine the Federal budget for those areas where cost savings can be achieved, we need to realize that there exists a point beyond which most Americans are not willing to go in order to save a dollar, and I believe we are at a point where we need to take a strategic look at the ability of the Coast Guard to continue to meet the demands of the American public into the 21st century. In sum, taking the concerns I have voiced into account, I support this bill because it approaches transportation spending from a national perspective, and it strives to maintain and improve the transportation infrastructure that is so vital to the economic well-being of our Nation. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting it. Thank you, Mr. President.