John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the majority leader. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maine, in introducing legislation on a topic of growing importance to coastal communities throughout the Northeast--conservation of North Atlantic fisheries resources. Since I arrived in the Senate over 12 years ago, I have worked to address the many challenges confronting our ocean and coastal resources. After all, few States draw as much of their national and regional identity from their coasts as does Massachusetts. My efforts have been principally through my participation as a member on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as co-chair of its predecessor, the National Ocean Policy Study. During my tenure, I have worked with my colleagues to develop innovative policy solutions to achieve the long-term protection and sustainable use of vulnerable marine resources. Our goal has been to ensure strong coastal economies and a clean, healthy ocean environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Alaska. One of our recent successes was last year's bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). That legislation, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, ultimately should provide the framework for rebuilding depleted fish stocks and developing management schemes to prevent overfishing. Unfortunately, many of the ideas and safeguards the new law contains represent difficult lessons learned from the devastating collapse of the New England groundfish fishery. In other regional fisheries, we have been too late to stop the depletion. This brings us to the issue at hand: How can we prevent repetition of the groundfish experience, maintain the current health of Atlantic herring and mackerel stocks, and encourage their sustainable use? The first step, of course, is through development of conservative and comprehensive fishery management plans. Toward that end, on June 17, 1997, I wrote the National Marine Fisheries Service, asking it to work with the New England Fishery Management Council to ensure the immediate development and implementation of a fishery management plan for Atlantic herring. Such a plan is essential to protect herring stocks and traditional fishery participants as proposals move forward to expand the herring fishery in Federal waters. Atlantic herring is an important part of New England's fishing tradition. For generations, we have harvested herring for use as canned sardines, as bait in lobster pots, and for other products. Fishermen using small boats form the base of the fishery, and it is those fishermen, more than any others, who seek an intelligent plan for managing the fishery and protecting against overharvest. In addition, Atlantic herring play a key role in the marine ecosystem off New England coasts by providing a primary food source for whales, seabirds, and other fish including groundfish, tuna, striped bass, and bluefish. The challenge now is to prevent a flood of new or displaced boats from entering the herring fishery and overwhelming the harvesting capacity of the resource. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that herring stocks are now at levels that would support an expanded harvest level. However, New England's past has taught us that in an unregulated environment, this current healthy condition could rapidly be reversed. Given the present lack of a Federal fishery management plan for herring and questionable scientific information on the status of the stocks, the uncontrolled expansion of this fishery could have devastating consequences. We need to slow down the increase in fishing power entering the herring fishery, and we need to give the New England Council the time to develop a thoughtful Federal management plan for herring that responds to local interests and needs. While I had hoped that the council and the Secretary of Commerce would be able to accomplish these goals through the process established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other fishery laws, it has become clear in recent weeks that we must impose temporary legislative safeguards until that process is complete. The bill which Senators Snowe, Kennedy, and I are introducing today, the North Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Act, provides those safeguards. First, by September 30, 1998, the New England and Mid- Atlantic Councils and the Secretary of Commerce are required to develop and implement both a fishery management plan for herring and a plan amendment for Atlantic mackerel. Second, a fishing vessel that is longer than 165 feet or has engines that exceed 3,000 horsepower is prohibited from harvesting either herring or mackerel until the councils and the Secretary have addressed the potential impact of such vessels in the management plan. While the provisions of the North Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Act are specific to two Northeast fisheries, the issues which they address should become part of a broader national policy debate about our vision for the American fishing industry in the 21st century. For over two decades, our fishery policies have focused on two goals: conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources and development of the domestic fishing industry. We have succeeded beyond our expectations in achieving the second goal of developing the U.S. fishing industry. I am optimistic that the Sustainable Fisheries Act will move us toward achieving the first goal of improving conservation and management. With the achievement of those goals, however, come new questions. What do we want our fishing industry to look like in the years to come? What should we as a nation do to preserve traditional coastal communities centered on small-boat fishermen? What restrictions if any should be placed on enormous factory trawlers? In New England, these large ships conjure up memories of foreign factory trawlers vacuuming up and destroying U.S. fishery resources in the days before the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Are such ships an appropriate element in other U.S. fisheries? The legislation before us today focuses on the actions needed to safeguard the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. However, I look forward to the broader debate. By the prompt enactment of this legislation I hope we can contribute to that debate and begin to shift the national example set by New England fisheries from one of overfishing and painful rebuilding toward one of conservative management that is successful in preserving both the fishermen and the fish.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Maine, in introducing legislation on a topic of growing importance to coastal communities throughout the Northeast--conservation of North Atlantic fisheries resources. Since I arrived in the Senate over 12 years ago, I have worked to address the many challenges confronting our ocean and coastal resources. After all, few States draw as much of their national and regional identity from their coasts as does Massachusetts. My efforts have been principally through my participation as a member on the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as co-chair of its predecessor, the National Ocean Policy Study. During my tenure, I have worked with my colleagues to develop innovative policy solutions to achieve the long-term protection and sustainable use of vulnerable marine resources. Our goal has been to ensure strong coastal economies and a clean, healthy ocean environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulf of Alaska. One of our recent successes was last year's bill to reauthorize and strengthen the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). That legislation, the Sustainable Fisheries Act, ultimately should provide the framework for rebuilding depleted fish stocks and developing management schemes to prevent overfishing. Unfortunately, many of the ideas and safeguards the new law contains represent difficult lessons learned from the devastating collapse of the New England groundfish fishery. In other regional fisheries, we have been too late to stop the depletion. This brings us to the issue at hand: How can we prevent repetition of the groundfish experience, maintain the current health of Atlantic herring and mackerel stocks, and encourage their sustainable use? The first step, of course, is through development of conservative and comprehensive fishery management plans. Toward that end, on June 17, 1997, I wrote the National Marine Fisheries Service, asking it to work with the New England Fishery Management Council to ensure the immediate development and implementation of a fishery management plan for Atlantic herring. Such a plan is essential to protect herring stocks and traditional fishery participants as proposals move forward to expand the herring fishery in Federal waters. Atlantic herring is an important part of New England's fishing tradition. For generations, we have harvested herring for use as canned sardines, as bait in lobster pots, and for other products. Fishermen using small boats form the base of the fishery, and it is those fishermen, more than any others, who seek an intelligent plan for managing the fishery and protecting against overharvest. In addition, Atlantic herring play a key role in the marine ecosystem off New England coasts by providing a primary food source for whales, seabirds, and other fish including groundfish, tuna, striped bass, and bluefish. The challenge now is to prevent a flood of new or displaced boats from entering the herring fishery and overwhelming the harvesting capacity of the resource. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that herring stocks are now at levels that would support an expanded harvest level. However, New England's past has taught us that in an unregulated environment, this current healthy condition could rapidly be reversed. Given the present lack of a Federal fishery management plan for herring and questionable scientific information on the status of the stocks, the uncontrolled expansion of this fishery could have devastating consequences. We need to slow down the increase in fishing power entering the herring fishery, and we need to give the New England Council the time to develop a thoughtful Federal management plan for herring that responds to local interests and needs. While I had hoped that the council and the Secretary of Commerce would be able to accomplish these goals through the process established by the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other fishery laws, it has become clear in recent weeks that we must impose temporary legislative safeguards until that process is complete. The bill which Senators Snowe, Kennedy, and I are introducing today, the North Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Act, provides those safeguards. First, by September 30, 1998, the New England and Mid- Atlantic Councils and the Secretary of Commerce are required to develop and implement both a fishery management plan for herring and a plan amendment for Atlantic mackerel. Second, a fishing vessel that is longer than 165 feet or has engines that exceed 3,000 horsepower is prohibited from harvesting either herring or mackerel until the councils and the Secretary have addressed the potential impact of such vessels in the management plan. While the provisions of the North Atlantic Fisheries Resource Conservation Act are specific to two Northeast fisheries, the issues which they address should become part of a broader national policy debate about our vision for the American fishing industry in the 21st century. For over two decades, our fishery policies have focused on two goals: conservation and management of U.S. fishery resources and development of the domestic fishing industry. We have succeeded beyond our expectations in achieving the second goal of developing the U.S. fishing industry. I am optimistic that the Sustainable Fisheries Act will move us toward achieving the first goal of improving conservation and management. With the achievement of those goals, however, come new questions. What do we want our fishing industry to look like in the years to come? What should we as a nation do to preserve traditional coastal communities centered on small-boat fishermen? What restrictions if any should be placed on enormous factory trawlers? In New England, these large ships conjure up memories of foreign factory trawlers vacuuming up and destroying U.S. fishery resources in the days before the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Are such ships an appropriate element in other U.S. fisheries? The legislation before us today focuses on the actions needed to safeguard the Atlantic herring and mackerel fisheries. However, I look forward to the broader debate. By the prompt enactment of this legislation I hope we can contribute to that debate and begin to shift the national example set by New England fisheries from one of overfishing and painful rebuilding toward one of conservative management that is successful in preserving both the fishermen and the fish.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my distinguished colleague from Nevada, Senator Bryan, in identifying another egregious expenditure which is a perennial waste of the taxpayer's money: the timber road subsidy. Several years ago, my able friend and I joined forces to eliminate the wool and mohair subsidies. And in the last Congress, together we jettisoned the subsidies for the mink industry in the market access program. In fact, Mr. President, I think our opposition to the entire market access program has become quite well known in this body. Mr. President, the amendment we introduce today calls for the most modest reduction of a flagrantly wasteful subsidy which is helping denude our national forests and providing an outrageous taxpayer-funded give-away to the private sector. The Senator from Nevada and I are asking for the Senate to reduce this timber subsidy by $10 million. This money would come from the $47 million budget of the U.S. Forest Service's logging and construction program. Our amendment also prevents the Forest Service from using ``purchaser road credits'' to trade valuable Federal forest resources for environmentally destructive and costly timber roads. In essence, Mr. President, this amendment will put an end to the practice of awarding free trees in exchange for the industry paying its own road construction costs. This amendment also holds harmless counties that receive Federal payments from the sale value of federally owned timber, so it contains a mechanism to maintain a neutral fiscal impact on those counties. There is clearly much to complain about when it comes to timber sales--which routinely cost the Treasury and the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollar each year-- but the issue before us is much narrower. Under current U.S. Forest Service management, logging access roads are built in national forests using either taxpayer funds or assets to subsidize logging companies harvesting timber. The taxpayer subsidizes the construction and reconstruction of logging access roads by the Government either paying directly for the building of the roads or by trading trees when the timber company builds the road. The system known as the Purchaser Credit Program essentially gives timber purchasers ``free trees'' and, according to the GAO, includes a profit margin for purchasers. In both instances, timber companies receive subsidies at the expense of taxpayers for activities that should be incorporated as a cost of doing business. Mr. President, this amendment does not reduce funding for road maintenance and it does not affect the construction or maintenance of recreation and general purpose roads. This amendment does not alter the infrastructure management budget or the reconstruction and construction budget of the Forest Service. This amendment contains no rider or any other language dealing with roadless areas of our national forests. This amendment does not prohibit timber companies from building their own roads in the national forests where that is permissible under existing laws and regulations, nor does it deter timber sales and harvesting. It merely eliminates taxpayer-funded logging road construction which should be the responsibility of the timber companies. It is a specific, concise amendment which will not only allow us to reduce our deficit but also prevent pollution of municipal water supplies and save fish and wildlife habitats. Originally, Mr. President, road building was subsidized by the U.S. Forest Service to encourage economic and community development. There was a time, especially after World War II, when the nation was rapidly expanding, that the government help for the Northwest timber industry made sense. But those days are over. We have learned that once areas are logged and logging companies move to new areas, communities cannot survive. Indeed they become ghost towns. There are no long term economic and community benefits to the public--only to private industry. If economic development is still the justification for this program, it flies in the face of some basic economic data. Mr. President, between 1950 and 1994, timber harvests increased by 64 percent, while employment in the wood and paper industry fell 4 percent. Other factors are at play in this subsidy. The fact is, Mr. President, the road-building subsidy--like the mink subsidy and the wool and mohair subsidy--is an anachronism. The degradation of forests over the last few decades has led to a wide variety of environmental and health problems, including dramatic increases in species extinctions, global warming--due in part to deforestation in both tropical and temperate zones--and the deterioration of water quality. Jim Lyons, Undersecretary of Agriculture, admits as much. He has told us, Mr. President, ``Our number one water-quality problem in the National Forest System is roads.'' In northern California, road building creates silt which clogs our State reservoirs and lessens water quality. Logging roads in national forests increase environmental degradation by contributing to the destruction and fragmentation of species, habitat, water pollution and landslides. In addition, Mr. President, since the 1940's, studies by the Forest Service and other fire scientists have found that more than 90 percent of all wildfires in the United States are human-caused, and 75 percent of these start within 265 feet of a road. We have a tremendous backlog of unmaintained forest logging roads that are now unsafe. Maintenance of these roads is expensive--if there is no money to maintain existing roads, how will we take care of new roads? The Forest Service reported in March 1997 that there is a $440 million backlog of road maintenance needs for its existing roads. Where is the fiscal sense in constructing new roads? Mr. President, there are currently 378,000 miles of roads throughout the national forest system, which is eight times the mileage of the U.S. interstate highway system. That's enough to circle the earth nearly 15 times. In some parts of our Pacific Northwest, one square mile is laced with up to 20 miles of road. Supporters say these roads open the forest to recreation. But, Mr. President, I can assure you many of these roads are not passable--I have seen studies on this issue which show that these roads are built for truck use with little concern for passenger vehicles or travel comfort. These are not recreation roads. In any case, Mr. President, the General Accounting Office has found that 70 percent of the Nation's subsidized logging roads are used almost exclusively by private timber companies and their contractors. Mr. President, while the environment suffers and the timber industry enriches itself, the taxpayer picks up the tab. In fact, the taxpayer pays toward the costs of each road three times: first to build the road, second to maintain it, and third to fix the environmental damage caused by road-induced fires and flood. This proposal to reduce the account by $10 million and eliminate the purchaser road credit is modest, rational common sense by any measure. I urge our colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the passage of the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997. With the passage of this bill the Senate will show its support for the very important work of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Each year SBA programs assist more than 1 million American small businesses through direct loans, loan guarantees, business counseling and training, and procurement assistance. Following a series of hearings this spring, the Committee on Small Business voted unanimously for the provisions contained in this bill on earlier this summer. There is much in this bill that we can all be proud of and happy to support. In addition to the continued support of such SBA programs as the 504 Community Development Company and 7(a) Guaranteed Business Loan Programs, the Committee has elevated the SBA's Microloan Program from demonstration to permanent status and introduced new provisions that will benefit small businesses: the HUBZone Act and the Microloan Welfare-to-Work pilot project. Title I includes the authorization levels for the various programs being reauthorized in this bill. Title II addresses the Microloan, Small Business Investment Company, and Certified Development Company programs. Title III deals with a very important sector of small businesses, women's business enterprises. Included in this section is a provision increasing the authorization for women's business centers. Title IV addresses the Small Business Competitiveness Demonstration Program and a critical issue for small businesses: procurement opportunities. Title V contains provisions supporting the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program, Small Business Development Centers, and the pilot preferred surety bond guarantee program. Finally, Title VI creates a new SBA program, the HUBZone Program that extends contracting opportunites to small businesses located in the poorer areas of our country. Mr. President, it is a fact that small business owners often are not served by traditional lending services. SBA operates several programs designed to fill this lending void and extend assistance to this critical segment of the American economy. From the Microloan Program which makes loans only in amounts of less than $25,000 to the 504 program where loan guarantees can be as high as $1,250,000, SBA programs meet a critical need for our country's entrepreneurs. Accordingly, I am pleased with the support the committee has shown by authorizing adequate funding levels for most SBA programs. The 7(a), 504, Small Business Investment Company, Delta and SCORE programs were all authorized at or above the administration's requests. All of these programs are critical to the continued effectiveness of the Small Business Administration and for the future of small business development in our country. The SBA's Microloan Program has been a tremendous success since its inception in 1991. Since its authorization, this program has provided technical assistance and made over 5,800 loans totaling over $60 million to small businesses in our country. The Microloan Program authorizes intermediary lenders to provide loans under $25,000 to small businesses and to provide the business owners with technical assistance on how to run their business more effectively. There are 103 Microloan intermediaries located in 46 of our 50 States, including 5 in my home State of Massachusetts. Forty-three percent of microloans go to women- owned businesses, 39 percent to minority-owned businesses, and 11 percent to veteran-owned businesses. The results could not be more stunning. The Microloan Program has been so successful that there has only been one default of a loan to an intermediary in the years it has been in operation. Because of its demonstrated success, the committee chose to elevate the Microloan Program from demonstration status to a permanent part of the SBA portfolio of programs and to authorize $28 million per year for each of the next 3 years for the essential technical assistance grants. After listening to the testimonies of witnesses on the importance of technical assistance to microloan borrowers, it is clear that the support of the direct loan portion of the program requires supporting the technical assistance portion. The borrowers will not be able to utilize the direct loans properly without first learning how to manage their businesses. I am pleased that the Microloan Program is receiving support from the committee and hope that we will continue to support the important technical assistance component in the future. Another section of this bill will assist many small businesses nationwide. The Women's Business Center provision was originally introduced by Senator Domenici and cosponsored by Chairman Bond and myself along with all the Democratic members of the Small Business Committee. Section 306 makes the Women's Business Center program permanent, doubling the funding for the program to $8 million dollars for each of the next 3 years, and extends eligibility for awardees from 3 to 5 years. Women-owned businesses comprise one-third of all American companies, contribute more than $1.5 trillion dollars to the U.S. economy and employ more people than Fortune 500 companies. The changes made by this bill will better enable organizations, such as the Center for Women & Enterprise, Inc., in Boston, to continue offering the services that help women-owned businesses thrive. This bill also reauthorizes the Small Business Technology Transfer [STTR] Program for 6 more years. In July, I had the opportunity to cohost with the Small Business Administration a conference on STTR in Cambridge, MA, with representatives of my State's high-technology small business companies. These businesspeople expressed their belief that the STTR Program has been an unqualified success in meeting the goals established for it by Congress 5 years ago: to ensure that the federally funded research conducted in America's nonprofit institutions is given an outlet through small businesses to be turned into commercial products. That commercialization increases the American job base, helps our economy, and allows American businesses to compete with overseas rivals. I was proud to be the sponsor of the original legislation reauthorizing the STTR Program for 6 more years and I'm very happy that it has been included in this bill. Many sections of the Small Business Reauthorization Act establish new levels of flexibility for the SBA to administer their programs. For example, investment restrictions on Small Business Investment Companies [SBIC's] have been relaxed to allow greater investment in the SBICs by commercial banks. SBIC's will also now be allowed to make quarterly distributions to its investors. This may not sound important to many people, but allowing quarterly distributions as opposed to yearly or biyearly makes it easier for the SBIC's investors to meet their quarterly tax requirements. Therefore, an investment in an SBIC is a more attractive investment. Attracting more investment helps the SBIC help more small businesses. The committee has given SBA more authority in the selling of debentures. Instead of requiring a sale every 3 months, SBA now must sell only every 6 months but can hold sales earlier if adequate demand exists. This change is also aimed at making the SBA's assets more attractive to investors and therefore, at attracting more favorable market prices. Microloan lenders are also given more flexible rules for their loan loss reserves. After a Microloan lender has been in the program for at least 5 years, they will be allowed to carry a loan loss reserve equal to the greater of 10 percent or twice that lender's historical loan loss rate. This provision frees up more resources for many lenders to make more loans and provide a greater boost to the economy. All of these changes have been undertaken in an effort to allow the SBA to run in a more businesslike, market-responsive manner. I am pleased to support these changes and look forward to the progress that SBA will show in the coming years. A new program authorized through this bill is the Welfare-to-Work Microloan Pilot Program. I originally introduced this legislation to build on the successes of the Microloan Program by providing additional training and support for some of today's welfare recipients so that they may be tomorrow's business owners. The bill authorizes $4, $5, and $6 million over each of the next 3 fiscal years for this purpose. At a hearing on the Microloan Program last month, members of the committee heard testimony that demonstrated how it is possible for welfare recipients to become successful entrepreneurs given the proper technical assistance training. At that same hearing, Mr. John Else of the Institute of Social and Economic Development in Iowa told the committee about the remarkable success rate they have with their Microloan clients. These clients, mostly welfare recipients and other low-income people, had a 70-percent success rate which is an astounding contrast to the high failure rate for startup businesses. So the committee believes the goals of the Welfare-to-Work Pilot Program are attainable. I believe it is time that we give welfare recipients across the country the opportunity to succeed by expanding the mission and scope of the Microloan Program. Finally, I thank the chairman of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Bond, for his efforts throughout the reauthorization process that have resulted in a very productive and effective bill. His support for SBA programs is demonstrated through his willingness to make sure that the effectiveness of these programs continues by adequately funding them. A provision included in the reauthorization bill which was initiated by the chairman and which I cosponsored after the chairman agreed to certain improvements, is the historically underutilized business zone or HUBZone bill. Its stated purpose of assisting companies in economically depressed areas is a worthy goal that gained widespread support on the committee. Through HUBZones, more contracting opportunities will be available in the poorest areas of our country. This is definitely another strike against impoverished regions and a further opportunity for American small businesses. I am pleased that is was included in the committee bill. Mr. President, our Nation's small businesses are the backbone of our economy. By supporting the Small Business Reauthorization Act, my colleagues have demonstrated their support for our Nation's small businesses and their commitment to our future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last year Congress enacted legislation that I sponsored with Senator McCain to provide payment to some 450 Vietnamese commandos who were captured by North Vietnamese forces while performing covert operations for the United States behind enemy lines and subsequently incarcerated in North Vietnamese prisons for 20 years or more. Under this legislation, each of the commandos would receive a lump sum payment of $40,000--payment their families did not receive during their years of incarceration because the Pentagon wrote them off the employment rolls by declaring them dead. Presently about 200 of the commandos reside in the United States. Most are either U.S. citizens or resident aliens applying for citizenship. Many of them receive Medicaid and related benefits. The problem is that receipt of the long overdue lump sum payment will disqualify them from Medicaid and other benefits they currently receive because it raises their income above the cutoff point for benefits. Let me give you an example. Last year, I met with a group of commandos including Ly Pho, who lives in my home State of Massachusetts. Ly and his colleagues wanted to express their thanks for our efforts to provide them compensation. Shortly after the meeting, which was widely reported in the press in Massachusetts, Ly was notified by his social service case worker that his Medicaid assistance would be terminated once he received the compensation. Inadvertently, we have placed the commandos in an untenable position which forces them to choose between the funds we rightly owe them for their services and loyalty to our cause during the war and the benefits they now receive. The amendment Senator McCain and I are offering today is designed to eliminate this Hobson's choice by making it clear that the payment each commando receives will not disqualify him from receiving these benefits. I believe that this amendment is necessary and fair. These men made great sacrifices for the United States. They were incarcerated for years and many of them were tortured during their incarceration. We are in their debt. We cannot give them compensation with one hand and take away the life sustaining health benefits that they need with another. This is an important amendment with no additional financial burden to the U.S. Government. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on Saturday, August 16th, 1997, this nation lost a leader in the fight for quality public education. The history of this country demonstrates that it is only through education that we can give the next generation the tools they need to prosper and advance, and Meline Kasparian of Massachusetts embodied this commitment every day of her professional life. Meline spent twenty-five years in the classrooms of Springfield, Massachusetts, teaching two subjects that she loved dearly: English and theater. Her students were profoundly touched by her ability to present works from a broad spectrum of history and make them relevant and applicable to the modern age. In the course of teaching, she exposed her students to a broad variety of artists, including the works of African-American playwrights and authors such as James Baldwin and Julius Lester. This love of art, literature and history inspired her to work with the Black Repertory Theatre at the University of Massachusetts/Amherst, where her extensive contributions will be missed for years to come. Ultimately, though, Ms. Kasparian will be remembered for her contributions to education on both the local and state level. From 1987 to 1996, Meline Kasparian devoted her time to numerous associations committed to retaining the highest educational standards in the country. Her career as a committed leader in Massachusetts began with her service as president of the Springfield Education Association in 1987 and culminated in her election as president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, an organization 80,000 members strong, in 1996. Ms. Kasparian's fight for quality public education made her prominent on the national stage, as well. At conferences, workshops and round- tables, she worked with politicians and education advocates from all over the country. She included in her focus numerous Democratic National Conventions, where she proudly represented the people of Massachusetts as a delegate. At these and other national conferences, Meline distinguished herself as a tireless advocate for the expansion of educational opportunities. Realizing the impact it had on educational priorities, she invested considerable time in the electoral process of her state, working on campaigns for legislators such as John Olver, and, I am proud to say, in my re-election campaign in 1996. Ms. Kasparian's charity and service extended beyond her profession. She hosted fundraisers for international relief organizations, demonstrating her deep and unselfish commitment to improving the quality of life for others throughout the world. In and of themselves, her contributions to housing through the work of the Amherst Housing Review Board, which she helped to establish, are worthy of recognition. It is with our knowledge of Meline Kasparian as an influential leader and a selfless and caring woman that we honor her for her efforts in educating thousands of young people across Massachusetts and attempting to bring educational opportunities to every child.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk and I ask for its appropriate referral. Mr. President, I am introducing today a bipartisan bill, together with Senator Coats of Indiana. This is the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1997. This bill would protect workers from on-the-job discrimination related to religious beliefs and practices. It represents a milestone in the protection of the religious liberties of all workers. Senator Coats and I developed this new bill based on a similar bill I introduced earlier this session. In 1972, Congress amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to require employers to reasonably accommodate an employee's religious practice or observance unless doing so would impose an undue hardship on the employer. This 1972 amendment, although completely appropriate, has been interpreted by the courts so narrowly as to place little restraint on an employer's refusal to provide religious accommodation. The Workplace Religious Freedom Act will restore to the religious accommodation provision the weight that Congress originally intended and help assure that employers have a meaningful obligation to reasonably accommodate their employees' religious practices. The restoration of this protection is no small matter. For many religiously observant Americans the greatest peril to their ability to carry out their religious faiths on a day-to-day basis may come from employers. I have heard accounts from around the country about a small minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for employees to observe the Sabbath and other holy days or for employees who must wear religiously-required garb, such as a yarmulke, or for employees to wear clothing that meets religion-based modesty requirements. The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination. It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This common sense definition of undue hardship is used in the ``Americans with Disabilities Act'' and has worked well in that context. We have little doubt that this bill is constitutional because it simply clarifies existing law on discrimination by private employers, strengthening the required standard for employers. Unlike the Religious Freedom Restoration Act [RFRA], which was declared unconstitutional recently by the Supreme Court, the bill does not deal with behavior by State or Federal Governments or substantively expand 14th amendment rights. I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. This bill is endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, Baptist Joint Committee, Christian Legal Society, Seventh- day Adventists, National Association of Evangelicals, National Council of the Churches, National Sikh Center, and Presbyterian Churches. I ask unanimous consent that the letter from the Coalition for Religious Freedom in the Workplace, which represents all of these groups, be included in the Record. I want to thank Senator Coats for joining me in this effort. I look forward to working with him to pass this legislation so that all American workers can be assured of both equal employment opportunities and the ability to practice their religion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, would it be appropriate at this time to ask if I could proceed after the Senator from New Mexico?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the leader for that answer. I understand where he is heading with respect to that. If I could ask further, I had wanted at this time, Mr. President, to be able to introduce a bill. I don't know what the intentions of the leader are regarding time to be able to proceed and do that.

Mr. KERRY. Will the majority leader yield further?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the majority leader. He is correct, there has been a significant amount of progress made in the last 2 weeks. I ask the majority leader publicly on the record what he and I have talked about a number of times privately, and that is an issue of enormous concern to some of us. We have written a letter to the majority leader regarding a campaign finance reform debate. While we leave here in good spirits and have cooperated, when we come back, many of us are adamant about having the opportunity to debate campaign finance reform. I ask the majority leader whether he has a sense of when that might take place or if he could give assurance that it will take place.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the chamber today to support this balanced budget. We have worked for many years, making hard choices, fighting for our priorities, managing this country's budget process-- all in order to be able to stand in the Chamber as members of both political parties in support of a balanced budget. It is not the bill I would have written, but there is a large degree of foolhardiness in rejecting the good in favor of the perfect. A great debt is owed to the chairman and ranking member of the Finance Committee and their counterparts on the Budget Committee as well as their staffs who have worked with us over the course of these many months in crafting this plan. And, there is no question in my mind, Mr. President, that this legislation is better than the deal the Senate passed last month--a plan I opposed because it did not do enough for hard-working American families and largely ignored America's children. This legislation before us now incorporates many of the provisions I and others on this side of the aisle fought to have included. For that reason, this is a day of vindication for Americans who believe, as Democrats have proven, that it is vital to balance the Federal budget and extend health care to children, provide broader educational opportunities, ensure the future for our senior citizens and safeguard our environment. Since 1993, we have moved in this direction. In 1993, when the first Democrat in a generation was elected President and Democrats formed the majority in both Houses of Congress, we have worked arduously to break the spiraling deficits which plagued our Nation for a decade and provide a solid economic foundation for our Nation as we move into the 21st century. And, Mr. President, we've succeeded. We have waited for the day when the benefits of our hard work would be as obvious as they are today. Even the possibility of the legislation before us now--a conceptually balanced budget with tax breaks-- is testament to the application of Democratic ideals to fiscal policy. In 5 years, we cut the deficit from $290 billion to the current level of perhaps less than $50 billion. Interest rates are subdued. We are seeing the lowest unemployment and inflation rates and the largest drop in poverty rates in a generation. Consumer confidence has shown the best improvement since the Eisenhower administration and the value of the stock market has doubled since 1993--the Dow break records every day--and the market itself is experiencing the fastest growth since the Second World War. We have been successful, because, since the Great Depression, our party has stuck by the fundamental belief that sound economic and social policy go hand-in-glove, that our Nation is stronger when all Americans have equal economic opportunity. Thomas Jefferson taught us that ours is a Nation of the common man and enshrined this belief in one of our most treasured documents when he wrote of the self-evident truth that all men are created equal. Andrew Jackson echoed this creed when he restated the party's commitment to the humble members of our society--the farmers, mechanics and laborers. That commitment, that core set of beliefs, is in fact, Mr. President, the essence of the American dream and the foundation of what has become the greatest contribution this Nation has provided to the world's social economic history--the growth of a vibrant middle class. Universal economic opportunity, sound fiscal policy based on equitable distribution of benefits and assistance to those most in need--those are the fundaments of Democratic economic policy. That is the goal of the program we put in place in 1993, and that is the end to which our fiscal policies are directed. Franklin Roosevelt reminded us of our commitment to expanding opportunity when he said: ``the spirit of opportunity is the kind of spirit that has led us as a Nation--not as a small group but as a Nation--to meet very great problems.'' Mr. President, as Democrats, we believe that deficit reduction is a means to an end. We believe that tax breaks are a means to an end. But, unlike the Republicans, we do not subscribe to the callow notion that deficit reduction is an economic policy in and of itself or that tax breaks are an end which justify any means. We do not believe that cutting vital programs is a courageous or visionary act. We believe that courage lies in advancing economic opportunity: this requires wisdom, innovation and prescience. It is chilling that this dichotomy of political and economic philosophy remains as obviously demarcated today as it was 100 years ago. I re-read the cogent description by William Jennings Bryan of the two opposing ideas of government: he separated the parties into those who ``legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous and wait for their prosperity to leak through on those below, or those who legislate to make the masses prosperous and ensuring that their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them.'' Mr. President, as a U.S. Senator, I have an obligation to the constituents who elected me to represent their interests, to act on their behalf and to present their views to this body. At times here, there is often a temptation to acquiesce ones core set of beliefs to the majority. It is easier to be hidden by the crowd than to stand alone and dissent, simpler to obey the tenets of a deal than the core of ones belief, more politic to do what is possible than do what is right, and more efficient to save time by agreeing. But remember the words of Harry Truman, Mr. President, when he said that ``whenever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship.'' I am pleased that our provocation, our urging, our insistence in crafting this compromise that helps working class Americans was successful. I cannot turn away from the long history which has shaped my essence sense of fairness, my overarching insistence on making government work for the common good and the needs of my constituents. Mr. President, for that reason, I voted against the tax portion of the reconciliation bill as I voted against the spending portion when they passed the Senate the first time, and because these bills were dramatically improved, I am able to support the conference report today. Mr. President, I am grateful for the work of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Roth who chairs the Finance Committee and my friend from New York, Senator Moynihan, who serves as that committee's ranking member. They have improved a gravely flawed piece of legislation passed by the House of Representatives and the Senate the first time. During the course of the initial debate, I attempted to shape the legislation so it would do more for more average citizens, but time and again we were rebuffed. I said at the time, Mr. President, that before I could approve it when it returns from conference, this legislation needed significant improvement, especially as regards the treatment of children and hard-working American families. In the original Senate package, nearly 43 percent of the breaks went to the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans--those who earn more than $120,000. In the original plan, Mr. President, 60 percent of hard- working poor and middle class Americans got only 12.7 percent of the tax breaks, while the richest 1 percent of Americans get 13 percent of the benefits. In the original Finance Committee proposal, the poorest 60 percent got as much as the richest 1 percent. This was a new standard of unfairness. This was anathema to the party of Jefferson and Jackson and Truman and Roosevelt. I tried to change it; I was unsuccessful and I rejected it. I am pleased the conference report has a more equitable distribution by allowing more working class Americans to take advantage of the child-tax credit, for example. By most measures, Mr. President, this proposal has moved closer to our ideals and is unquestionably more equitable. There is no more obvious improvement in this bill, Mr. President, from the original Finance Committee plan than the treatment of hard- working middle class families raising children. During the initial debate, I attempted to give more help to the American families on the lower end of the economic spectrum--young families with young children--who will be doing the most for our country in the future. Mr. President, I attempted to correct this basic inequity by offering an amendment which would have improved the bill by granting a refundable child tax credit to all working families. Most Americans pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes. Income taxes have remained stable for most Americans in the past 10 years while payroll taxes have increased 17 percent. My distinguished colleague from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu, attempted to amend the original plan so families who receive the earned income credit would not be penalized. She is a new member of this body, Mr. President, but she has already made an enormous contribution. She is a young mother and as such speaks with a clear voice on the difficulties of raising children today, and Mr. President, because this proposal incorporates her vision and my vision, it is a better deal for all Americans. I am pleased also that this conference report allows Americans to off-set the credit against these payroll taxes. Now, it applies to all Americans even those receiving the earned income credit. This is in distinct contrast with the original Finance Committee plan under which nearly 40 percent of America's children were excluded from the tax credit. Those 40 percent are the children of working class Americans, children of young teachers, police officers, farmers and nurses who work hard and are the backbone of this country. Now, Mr. President, the Democrat proposal--more measured and fair-- has prevailed. And, more Americans will be afforded a share of the great economic success this country has enjoyed since 1993. I could tell you that this bill provides a tax break for 5.9 million more American families with children than the Senate bill and 7.5 million more families than the House bill, but instead of relying dry statistical analyses and distributional tables, let me take a moment to show you some real people and compare how the different plans affect them. The Richards family from Sioux Falls, SD, Charlie and Karen and their two children, will receive $975 from the child tax credit and both their children will be covered by health insurance. Under the House plan, the family would have received no child tax break; under the Senate plan, $418. This legislation, incorporating my amendment, will give them twice as much in the child tax break. Under this plan, the Ussinger family from Albuquerque, NM will receive $1500 in child tax breaks. The House plan would have given them $6 and the original Finance Committee plan would have provided $458. This plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Ussingers three times as much. The Buckman family from Washington, DC, will now receive $594 in the child tax break. Under the House bill, the Buckmans would have gotten nothing and the Senate version would have given them only $143. So, this plan, incorporating my amendment, will give the Buckmans here in our Nation's capital four times as much in child tax breaks. All of those children, Mr. President, every one of them, and 5 million more, will have health insurance thanks to our insistence and the leadership of Senator Kennedy that we deliver the largest investment in the health of our children since the enactment of Medicaid, a generation ago. This plan invests an unprecedented $24 billion for uninsured children, and since it is funded by a tax on cigarettes, it is, in fact, a double health benefit. This plan serves as a financial barrier--a powerful disincentive for children to start smoking in the first place. It supplements, not supplants, current health care coverage. Our plan requires that States maintain their current Medicaid eligibility levels of spending to access Federal dollars to ensure that this investment is not used to replace public or private money that already covers children. Mr. President, simply put, this is the embodiment of the Democratic principles I mentioned earlier. This victory for America's children and middle-income families is a victory for America itself. We will all benefit from a healthier generation of children. Mr. President, there are some elements of this package about which I am unsure. I would have preferred the approach to capital gains reduction for which Senator Bumpers and I have fought for a decade--a measured, targeted approach instead of the broad-based cut this bill contains. I would have rejected the large back-loaded expensive IRA provision. But, at the end of the day, we must ask ourselves if this legislation meets the basic standards of fairness to which we attest; does it help average, hard-working American families? The answer is yes. Does it provide assistance for America's children and the young families struggling to raise them--those who have as yet not enjoyed the fruits of the economic boom? The answer is yes. I am pleased to be able to join the majority of our colleagues, Mr. President, in supporting this plan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on June 24, I had the privilege of introducing Ms. Jane Garvey of Massachusetts to the Senate Commerce Committee as President Clinton's nominee to be the next administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration. On that day I proclaimed that she has the experience, the intellect and the management skills necessary to prepare the FAA for the challenges of the 21st Century. Since my introduction, the Chairman and other members of this Committee have put forth questions, both verbally and in writing, on a range of issues pertaining to Ms. Garvey's past experience and to the important challenges facing the FAA. In my view, her answers have, indeed, borne out my glowing introduction and have demonstrated beyond any doubt that she will be an excellent FAA Administrator. Indeed, Ms. Garvey s nomination comes to the floor with the unanimous support of the Commerce Committee. Mr. President, the challenges before the FAA are enormous. Among other matters, the next Administrator will need to effectively modernize the nation's air traffic control system to keep pace with America's growing air travel needs. She will also be charged with efficiently procuring and deploying the next generation of explosive detection equipment to protect our nation's citizens from rogue elements who seek to indiscriminately harm air travelers. Action on these and other matters are essential to ensuring the safety and security of all American citizens. To address these matters and guide the world's largest aviation agency into the 21st Century, the President sought a strong and capable leader with proven and tested management skills. In my view, the President could not have made a better choice. Jane Garvey has long been recognized in Massachusetts and in Washington as a top-quality public servant with superior management skills. Jane Garvey directed the Massachusetts Department of Public Works, the 8th largest state highway program in the nation, where she supervised the state's multibillion-dollar highway construction program. Jane Garvey also served as Massachusetts Director of Aviation, managing airport operations at Logan Airport in Boston and directing the planning of Logan's $1 billion modernization. Upon coming to Washington where Jane has been Deputy and Acting Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, Jane supervised an agency with a $20 billion dollar budget and offices in every state. At each step in her impressive career, Jane Garvey has received praise from government and industry officials alike. In my view, there can be no doubt that Jane Garvey has the vision and proven administrative experience to manage the FAA. However, aside from her managerial expertise, Jane Garvey has also developed a reputation for putting safety first. Over the past four years, Jane Garvey has been a recognized leader in moving safety to the top of Federal Highway's agenda. Hazardous highway-rail grade crossings are being eliminated; truck safety standards are being upgraded; and infrastructure investments and high-tech intelligent transportation systems are emphasizing safety first. In fact, as Massachusetts Director of Aviation, Jane oversaw the deployment of prototype safety systems to prevent runway collisions and a communications center that integrated operations with safety and weather information. Jane Garvey has consistently made public safety her highest priority, and she will take this commitment to safety with her to the FAA. She is the best choice to ensure that our nation's passenger air system remains the world's safest as air traffic continues to increase. Finally, Jane Garvey understands the value and promise of technology. She presently oversees nearly a half-billion dollars annually in Federal Highway technology research and development including the deployment of intelligent transportation systems that apply advanced computer and communications technologies to travel. At Logan Airport, Jane Garvey managed the deployment of modernized air traffic control systems and made the airport a testing ground for such innovative technologies as radar-linked runway-guide guard lights and converging runway display aids. Jane Garvey's management experience combined with her understanding of emerging technologies will enable the FAA to deploy cutting-edge technologies on time and within its budget, and will help the FAA to deploy the air-traffic control systems and safety improvements necessary to support our nation s growing air travel needs. Mr. President, I submit to you that above all else, a vote for Jane Garvey to be the next FAA Administrator is a vote for superior management and an unwavering commitment to public safety. I urge my colleagues to unanimously support this nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on behalf of the leadership, I do object.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I concur with Senator Snowe and Senator Stevens on this point.

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

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. I would like to also thank all of those involved in this effort, which has been a very long, very complicated, sometimes difficult effort, but I think, nevertheless, an extremely important one, which is resulting in a very important conservation bill being passed. I particularly thank Senator McCain, Senator Stevens, Senator Hollings, Senator Breaux, Senator Snowe, Senator Boxer, Senator Biden, Senator Daschle, Senator Inouye, and Senator Smith, all of whom have been involved in the negotiations and effort to reach this point. I thank the representative from the White House, Katie McGinty, and the State Department, and the Department of Commerce who have all been part of these negotiations, and particularly the staff on both sides, the staff on the majority side that Senator Stevens mentioned and also particularly Kate English and Penny Dalton, Tom Richey and Jean Toal on our side who have really spent hour upon hour upon hour trying to find a compromise. I fought for this compromise because it includes the critical element missing from the original bill: enhanced protection for depleted dolphin stocks on the basis of sound science before any changes are made to U.S. law to ease restrictions on fishing procedures that could jeopardize dolphins. This was my key concern: sound science first. In addition, the compromise strengthens the bill by adding a bycatch reduction program, mandating a research study, guaranteeing funding costs for its initiation, and strengthening the authority for the emergency regulatory provisions. Finally, tied to the conclusions of the research study, the compromise resolves perhaps the key concern over the timing of, and the process for, changing the definition of what constitutes ``dolphin-safe'' when that term is employed to label tuna products. What this debate was and is about is the impact that fishing for yellowfin tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean [ETP] has had on the two depleted dolphin stocks placed at risk as a result of this fishing effort: the eastern spinner and northeastern offshore spotted dolphins. The authors of legislation that established the dolphin-safe label--Senators Boxer and Biden--intended the label as one method to bring attention to the plight of these quickly declining dolphin stocks due to the unsafe fishing practices of catching yellowfin tuna by setting nets on dolphins that swim with tuna. Since the creation of the label and the embargo of tuna products from countries that do not use the dolphin-safe fishing methods, dolphin mortality has dropped significantly. This decline in mortality has been attributed to the attention that the United States brought to this issue through the dolphin-safe label, and to the efforts of nations which participate in the dolphin conservation program under the La Jolla agreement of 1992. I think there is consensus that the La Jolla agreement and its successor agreement, the Panama Declaration, are very important to dolphin conservation. That is why I and Senators Boxer and Biden and others have continued to struggle to reach a compromise on this legislation which will move the Panama Declaration further along the path to creating an international treaty on dolphin protection. The outstanding concern with the bill originally reported by the Commerce Committee was that it altered the international conservation regime, before the safety of those alterations were scientifically known to be safe for depleted dolphin stocks. This concern applied particularly to changing the definition of the dolphin-safe label as required by the Panama Declaration. In my judgement, a decision to change the criteria for use of the dolphin-safe label could only be made responsibly after the U.S. Government would authoritatively answer the question, ``What is the current health and abundance of these two dolphin stocks?'' We know that 10 years ago over 80,000 dolphins were killed each year in the ETP through the practice of setting on dolphins to catch giant yellowfin tuna. While the Technique has been modified, the practice still exists today. The National Marine Fisheries Service, our Government agency charged with fisheries research and regulation, has not conducted a dolphin population study since 1987. Proponents of the bill as reported by committee claim that empirical data provided by the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] provides enough information for them to feel comfortable that the dolphin stocks are safe and that no further study is needed. They conclude that IATTC observer data indicate that dolphin populations are either stable or increasing and that, taking into account the added number of boats fishing in the ETP since 1988, dolphin recovery is suggested. bycatch versus dolphin Supporters of S. 39 argue that, from a broader conservation perspective, catching yellowfin tuna by methods other than setting on dolphin results in the higher catch levels of juvenile yellowfin and bycatch including sea turtles, sharks, and marlin. I share their conservation concerns about bycatch and I support the bycatch reduction program added to S. 39. However, I don't believe that we should address the bycatch problem at the expense of the two depleted dolphin stocks at risk in the ETP. That is why I have pushed so hard to ensure that any changes made to Federal law regarding fishing agreements that impact these two dolphin stocks must be based on sound scientific knowledge regarding the dolphin populations. If we all could agree that the dolphin stocks are recovering and that the new fishing practices developed over that last 10 years are now safe for dolphins, then there would be agreement on lifting the embargo and revisiting the precept of the dolphin-safe label. The dolphin research study included in this compromise will provide the necessary knowledge to support or refute this conclusion. history of tuna-dolphin debate I would like to briefly describe the history of dolphin conservation and why this compromise is so important to it continued success. Since the enactment of the Marine Mammal Protection Act in 1972 there has been a dramatic decrease in the dolphin deaths from American fishing practices. However, in the early years of the MMPA, foreign nations had become a far more serious source of dolphin mortality. During the 1980's amendments to the MMPA required foreign nations to accept dolphin protection requirements comparable to those imposed on U.S. tuna fishermen, or become subject to a U.S. ban on tuna imports. Those protections include a ban on encircling dolphin using purse seine nets when fishing in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean [ETP]. In 1990, following a voluntary prohibition on the purchase of tuna caught in association with dolphin by canned tuna companies, the U.S. implemented legislation to require a dolphin-safe tuna label which remains in use-today. The labeling law specifies that tuna caught in driftnets could not qualify as dolphin safe. That same year, the United States embargoed tuna imports from Mexico, Venezuela, and Vanuatu for failure to meet the MMPA requirements. In 1992, the MMPA was further amended by the International Dolphin Conservation Act, giving the Secretary of State authority to enter into international agreements to establish a global moratorium on the practice of setting nets on dolphins and established a dolphin-safe market in the United States in 1994. In 1992, the Inter-American Tropical Tuna Commission [IATTC] adopted a voluntary international agreement--the La Jolla agreement-- establishing a multilateral program to reduce dolphin mortalities in the ETP. This agreement contains the goal of reducing dolphin deaths to less than 5,000 annually. Currently, 11 nations including the United States, participate in this voluntary program. While Mexico had been a participant in the program, they recently announced that they were suspending their formal participation in the voluntary program. During the summer of 1995, five environmental groups and six Latin American nations negotiated the Panama Declaration, a new initiative to strengthen the IATTC dolphin protection program in exchange for eliminating the current United States ban on tuna that is not dolphin safe. This brings us to today, where our efforts are focused on enacting the necessary legislation for implementing the Panama Declaration, and the requirements that we revise United States dolphin protections laws. Thanks to the efforts of so many Senators, their staffs and others, the bill we are about to vote on now includes: a label change provision that accommodates our international obligations as laid out in the Panama Declaration, while providing enhanced protection for dolphins, and sound science for future conservation efforts. The compromise reflected in S. 39 as amended, provides for a $12 million over 3 years to fully fund a study on the practice of chase and encirclement and its impact on depleted dolphin stocks. The bill requires a preliminary finding on the results of this study to be made in March, 1999. Unless the Secretary of Commerce finds that intentional encirclement has a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks, then the definition of the ``dolphin-safe'' label immediately changes to allow for the encirclement of dolphin--as long as no dolphin were killed or seriously injured in the process--as a legitimate fishing practice in the eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. Conversely, if the Secretary of Commerce finds that intentional encirclement does not have a significant adverse impact on depleted stocks, then the dolphin- safe label does not change at that time. This compromise provides, further, for a second and final finding to be made by the Secretary of Commerce at the conclusion of the 3-year study, between July 2001 and December 2002, as to whether or not the intentional encirclement of dolphins has a significant adverse impact on depleted dolphin stocks or is preventing the recovery of such stocks. The Secretary of Commerce shall use the same threshold for this second determination. In closing, Mr. President, this compromise is an important step forward for both continued dolphin protection and enhanced ecosystem protection. The agreement we reached accommodates our international obligations as laid out in the Panama Declaration, while providing enhanced protection for dolphins, and sound science for future conservation efforts. This bill also continues to protect consumers by maintaining the dolphin-safe standards. S. 39 represents a serious, well-vetted effort to bridge legitimate differences on how best to protection dolphins. I, therefore, encourage my colleagues to vote for its swift passage. I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Kathleen McGinty at the White House be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California, and I thank her particularly for her comments about me. I am very appreciative of that. I thank her for her extraordinary tenacity in this effort and willingness to fight for what she believes in, which she did. I also want to emphasize that I believe this was a fair compromise arrived at by a lot of people who wanted to do what was in the best interest. I thank Senator Snowe and Senator McCain for their patience in this effort. It was trying at times and sometimes there were some difficulties along the way. They have been very gracious and very decent in arriving at this. I think a compromise is a compromise. Everybody agrees to settle, and they do so because it is in the best interests ultimately of the issue, and that is what has happened here. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from California 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senator McCain, to extend nondiscriminatory treatment most- favored-nation treatment to the products of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. To avoid confusion, let me say at the outset that this bill, if enacted into law, would not give Laos special tariff treatment but rather put it on a par with the vast majority of our trading partners. This bill is identical to H.R. 2132, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Crane. The administration strongly supports this bill. Recognizing the importance of a free market economy to economic growth and development, Laotian political leaders, in the late 1980's, made a fundamental decision to abandon Laos' centrally planned economic system and adopt free market reforms. Since taking this decision, the Laotian Government has embarked upon a constant process of reform. Over 90 percent of the 600 state-owned enterprises have been privatized. The foreign investment code, first adopted in 1989, was further liberalized in 1994 to make it consistent with World Trade Organization [WTO] standards. Laotian tariffs have been consistently reduced. An import- export regime consistent with WTO standards has been legislated. In 1995 an intellectual property, patent and trademark protection law was enacted. Laos has complied with International Monetary Fund guidelines on fiscal policy, instituted making reforms, and is following stringent fiscal management to reduce inflation. In recognition of these developments, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] admitted Laos as a member this month. The Laotian Government is now revising its laws and regulations, as necessary, to be consistent with ASEAN and ASEAN free trade agreement requirements. The United States and Laos have also taken steps to improve bilateral economic relations. Last year, an OPIC agreement was successfully negotiated. The U.S. Trade Representative's Office and Laotian officials are currently negotiating a bilateral trade agreement, which will also meet WTO standards. Reform in the economic area has been accompanied by major political changes as well in Laos. All but three political prisoners from the Southeast Asian war era have been released. In 1990 the Laotian Government adopted a constitution and bill of rights based on principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, American lawyers, serving as consultants, played a major role in writing these documents. Nationwide elections by secret ballot in 1992 led to the creation of a new National Assembly. Although still a one-party state, it is worth noting that individual candidates did not have to be Communist Party members to run in the elections, and in fact, several members of the assembly are not Communist Party members. The Laotian Government is also making a concerted effort to enhance the independence of the judiciary. The United States and Laos have established good working relations, particularly on two issues of great importance to us--POW/MIA and counter narcotics. Extending MFN to Laos makes sense economically, in terms of the Laotian commitment to economic reform, and in terms of our overall bilateral relationship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation, along with Senator McCain, to extend nondiscriminatory treatment most- favored-nation treatment to the products of the Lao People's Democratic Republic. To avoid confusion, let me say at the outset that this bill, if enacted into law, would not give Laos special tariff treatment but rather put it on a par with the vast majority of our trading partners. This bill is identical to H.R. 2132, introduced in the House of Representatives by Congressman Crane. The administration strongly supports this bill. Recognizing the importance of a free market economy to economic growth and development, Laotian political leaders, in the late 1980's, made a fundamental decision to abandon Laos' centrally planned economic system and adopt free market reforms. Since taking this decision, the Laotian Government has embarked upon a constant process of reform. Over 90 percent of the 600 state-owned enterprises have been privatized. The foreign investment code, first adopted in 1989, was further liberalized in 1994 to make it consistent with World Trade Organization [WTO] standards. Laotian tariffs have been consistently reduced. An import- export regime consistent with WTO standards has been legislated. In 1995 an intellectual property, patent and trademark protection law was enacted. Laos has complied with International Monetary Fund guidelines on fiscal policy, instituted making reforms, and is following stringent fiscal management to reduce inflation. In recognition of these developments, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN] admitted Laos as a member this month. The Laotian Government is now revising its laws and regulations, as necessary, to be consistent with ASEAN and ASEAN free trade agreement requirements. The United States and Laos have also taken steps to improve bilateral economic relations. Last year, an OPIC agreement was successfully negotiated. The U.S. Trade Representative's Office and Laotian officials are currently negotiating a bilateral trade agreement, which will also meet WTO standards. Reform in the economic area has been accompanied by major political changes as well in Laos. All but three political prisoners from the Southeast Asian war era have been released. In 1990 the Laotian Government adopted a constitution and bill of rights based on principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. In fact, American lawyers, serving as consultants, played a major role in writing these documents. Nationwide elections by secret ballot in 1992 led to the creation of a new National Assembly. Although still a one-party state, it is worth noting that individual candidates did not have to be Communist Party members to run in the elections, and in fact, several members of the assembly are not Communist Party members. The Laotian Government is also making a concerted effort to enhance the independence of the judiciary. The United States and Laos have established good working relations, particularly on two issues of great importance to us--POW/MIA and counter narcotics. Extending MFN to Laos makes sense economically, in terms of the Laotian commitment to economic reform, and in terms of our overall bilateral relationship. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.