John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, with Senator Hatch, and others, in introducing today legislation to provide health care to the 10 million children in the United States who today do not have that care. Last year, Senator Kennedy and I joined together with other Senators to introduce legislation to similarly provide health care to these children. Since the time that we introduced legislation a year ago, over 750,000 children under the age of 18 have lost health insurance. One child loses health insurance every 35 seconds in the United States. We are the only industrial country on the face of this planet that does not insure our children, or that does not insure, even, many of our adults. What is extraordinary about this situation is that we are not talking about the poorest of our poor in America. The poorest of the poor get help. They have health insurance. They get Medicaid. The fact is that we are talking about 10 million children who are the children of working Americans, fully three-fifths of whom work full-time jobs, and 90 percent of whom are working at some job or another. I visited recently at the Children's Hospital in Boston and I listened to the story of two parents who are working, both of whom are just not earning enough money in their full-time jobs to be able to pay the premiums for the expensive insurance that their sick child needs. The fact is that over one-half of all the children in the United States who have asthma never see a doctor. One-third of all the children in the United States who have an ear problem never see a doctor. Similarly, for eye problems: As we have learned from medical experts, those problems, often undiagnosed, become chronic ailments and many times become lifetime impairments. We then pick up the cost of those impairments with special education needs, and at the back end of often substance abuse or other kinds of highly intensive, labor- intensive interventions which we could have avoided early on. Just take the case of neonatal/prenatal care. It costs $1,000 for a year of covering a pregnant woman with early nutrition, early intervention, for pregnancy. But if a child is born underweight as a consequence of the lack of that kind of intervention, it costs $1,100 a day. I have talked to teachers in schools who have told me the stories of young students who come into the school; they are in the classroom and they are disruptive, not because they want to be disruptive, but because they have a problem. In one particular case, a teacher told me of a child who chronically disrupted the entire class. They could not figure it out. They finally got the child to a clinic because the child had not been examined by a doctor, and they found the child had a chronic earache problem as a consequence of an infection. Antibiotics were given, the infection was cleared up, and the child became a full participant in the classroom. Mr. President, there are countless stories like these. I want to congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for working together in helping to come up with a scheme to fund this, that clearly addresses other health needs of the country. When we consider the costs of our various wings of hospitals that are dedicated to pulmonary disease, to emphysema, to cancer as a consequence of smoking, we are spending billions upon billions of dollars, far in excess of the cost of this kind of program, to provide preventive care at the early outset. So this is really an investment, not an expenditure. This will repay itself many times over. We know that the health care expenditure in early prevention will save anywhere from $3.40 to $16 by virtue of $1 invested. Mr. President, it is time in America for us for catch up to the rest of the industrialized world and provide insurance to the young children of this Nation who desperately need it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join with my colleague, Senator Kennedy, with Senator Hatch, and others, in introducing today legislation to provide health care to the 10 million children in the United States who today do not have that care. Last year, Senator Kennedy and I joined together with other Senators to introduce legislation to similarly provide health care to these children. Since the time that we introduced legislation a year ago, over 750,000 children under the age of 18 have lost health insurance. One child loses health insurance every 35 seconds in the United States. We are the only industrial country on the face of this planet that does not insure our children, or that does not insure, even, many of our adults. What is extraordinary about this situation is that we are not talking about the poorest of our poor in America. The poorest of the poor get help. They have health insurance. They get Medicaid. The fact is that we are talking about 10 million children who are the children of working Americans, fully three-fifths of whom work full-time jobs, and 90 percent of whom are working at some job or another. I visited recently at the Children's Hospital in Boston and I listened to the story of two parents who are working, both of whom are just not earning enough money in their full-time jobs to be able to pay the premiums for the expensive insurance that their sick child needs. The fact is that over one-half of all the children in the United States who have asthma never see a doctor. One-third of all the children in the United States who have an ear problem never see a doctor. Similarly, for eye problems: As we have learned from medical experts, those problems, often undiagnosed, become chronic ailments and many times become lifetime impairments. We then pick up the cost of those impairments with special education needs, and at the back end of often substance abuse or other kinds of highly intensive, labor- intensive interventions which we could have avoided early on. Just take the case of neonatal/prenatal care. It costs $1,000 for a year of covering a pregnant woman with early nutrition, early intervention, for pregnancy. But if a child is born underweight as a consequence of the lack of that kind of intervention, it costs $1,100 a day. I have talked to teachers in schools who have told me the stories of young students who come into the school; they are in the classroom and they are disruptive, not because they want to be disruptive, but because they have a problem. In one particular case, a teacher told me of a child who chronically disrupted the entire class. They could not figure it out. They finally got the child to a clinic because the child had not been examined by a doctor, and they found the child had a chronic earache problem as a consequence of an infection. Antibiotics were given, the infection was cleared up, and the child became a full participant in the classroom. Mr. President, there are countless stories like these. I want to congratulate Senator Kennedy and Senator Hatch for working together in helping to come up with a scheme to fund this, that clearly addresses other health needs of the country. When we consider the costs of our various wings of hospitals that are dedicated to pulmonary disease, to emphysema, to cancer as a consequence of smoking, we are spending billions upon billions of dollars, far in excess of the cost of this kind of program, to provide preventive care at the early outset. So this is really an investment, not an expenditure. This will repay itself many times over. We know that the health care expenditure in early prevention will save anywhere from $3.40 to $16 by virtue of $1 invested. Mr. President, it is time in America for us for catch up to the rest of the industrialized world and provide insurance to the young children of this Nation who desperately need it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the Senator from Georgia for his intercession and his help, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the Senator from California, [Mrs. Feinstein], who has been pressing so hard on this absolutely vital issue of concern to every single American. I listened carefully to the comments in the Chamber, particularly those of the Senator from Connecticut a moment ago. We differ on the question of whether certification is effective or not. The fact is, were it not for certification, we would not be here today fighting about what the appropriate action is with respect to Mexico and there would not be such sensitivities by Mexico or us to the consequences of our actions. Were it not for the certification process, there are whole countries that would continue to disregard, as they did prior to the certification process, any notions of cooperation. It is, frankly, only by virtue of the certification process that we have made the extra judgments with respect to Mexico that lead us to understand the dire circumstances that we find ourselves in today. Having said that, I want to comment on one other aspect of this, because I agree with the Senator from Connecticut. I have been, I think, forceful in speaking out on this over the last years. Any efforts to make any judgment about any other country must be accompanied by efforts to make judgments about ourselves. In fact, efforts to judge ourselves ought to come first, and we ought to be much tougher on ourselves than we are on the others. The fact is that after all these years of so-called declarations of war on drugs and all of the talk about its importance and all of the hype, we really do not have a legitimate war on drugs in our own country. I hear some people sometimes say, well, the reason we are losing the war on drugs is x, y or z. We are not losing the war on drugs, Mr. President. We are not fighting the war on drugs. Ask a lot of prosecutors around the country whether they have sufficient resources. Ask judges whether they can move people through the courts fast enough. What happened to the initiative to have drug courts? Ask drug addicts, who are the first people we ought to discuss this with, what they say about the system and if it is serious, because we treat less than 50 percent of the drug addicts in this country. If you want to take the pushers' clients away, we ought to have treatment on demand in America, clean the streets up of the addicts, have an outreach effort that identifies them in community after community and show some tough love in the United States and provide the treatment. You cannot have pushers come along fast enough to make up for that loss of business. Do you want to deal with the people who are hitting people over the heads and robbing cars and stealing radios and entering houses at night? Then that is the way to do it. But we do not. We do not even educate all our kids in America about the danger of drugs. Only 55 percent of our children get education about drugs. The fact is that from 1956 until 1994, we enacted 43 so-called comprehensive laws to deal with international narcotics control. From 1961 to 1991 we passed over 100 bills to combat drugs. There have been 10 major multilateral declarations and agreements signed between 1970 and 1992. Between 1966 and 1991 we created roughly 18 new agencies, councils, offices, and institutes to pretend to deal with drugs. Since President Bush established the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, we have had four drug czars. I think these efforts tell the story. Drug use by adults may be down a little bit, but the fact is that drug use by kids is on the rise. In 1992, the number of 12th graders using illegal drugs was 27 percent; in 1996 it was 40 percent. And our efforts to educate kids about the dangers of drugs are just plain inadequate. In 1996, only 36 percent of 8th graders thought that if they took LSD once or twice they could risk harming themselves. Similarly, only 51 percent believe that crack can harm them; and only 45 percent think that cocaine could hurt them. All of these numbers are down from 1991. So, as we talk about Mexico, let us not forget the failure of our own efforts. I intend to bring us back to this issue again and again, in the next months. It is time for us to do the job here. Every day there are 20 million 10-15 year old kids out there who need something to do after school. We cannot shut schools in the afternoon, we cannot be devoid of after-school programs, we cannot cut sports, music, arts, all of the options for our children, and suggest that they go home to houses where there is no parent, and not expect to reap the harvest of that kind of abandonment. Mr. President, that is our responsibility. Now, what about Mexico? They also have a responsibility. We are honest, at least, about judging our court system. We are honest about putting our cops in the street, 100,000 more of them, to try to deal with this. We are honest about trying to prosecute people, police officers and others in various departments across the country, who have shown a proclivity to break the law. That does not really happen in Mexico--not really. There is a fake process that goes on there. In fact, what really happens in Mexico is that one cartel buys out the police and the judges and the prosecutors in order to bring pressure on its rival cartels. For example, the attorney general and 90 percent of police, prosecutors and judges in Tijuana and the state of Baja California are judged to be on the payroll of the Arellano-Felix cartel. Do you want to sit around and expect them to do something? They will not because drug corruption is endemic throughout the system. Let me turn to some other examples. During his 2 years in office, former Attorney General Lozano fired some 1,250 Federal police officers and technical personnel for corruption. Yet not one of these has been successfully prosecuted. When Mexican army officers raided the wedding party of Amado Carillo Fuentes sister, they found members of the Mexican Federal Judicial Police guarding the party. Carillo Fuentes escaped thanks to a tip from the police about the raid. And on the very day that certification for Mexico was announced, Humberto Garcia Abrego, brother of Juan Garcia Abrego, and chief money launderer of the Gulf cartel was allowed to go free by Mexican officials, even though he was still under investigation for drug related crimes. Until the Mexican Government recognizes this reality and throws out all the policemen, prosecutors, judges, and military officials on the payrolls of the traffickers, and basically says, ``We are going to start again, and we are committed to this,'' it is impossible to have the kind of cooperation that is necessary in this effort. Our own DEA Administrator, Thomas Constantine, has told us that ``There is not one single law enforcement institution in Mexico with whom DEA has an entirely trusting relationship.'' When we went down to meet with the President of the United States and various Cabinet people on this subject, President Clinton properly put the issue to us. He made a judgment, for reasons that I can understand--I do not agree with, but I understand--he made a judgment that the best way to get Mexico to try to engage in this effort was to certify them. I disagree. In my judgment, to certify them, or anything less than what we are doing here now, is to ratify the status quo. And it is to say that the same patterns of behavior that have sufficiently gotten you by any critical judgments over the span of the last 10 years will be able to continue into next year and the next year until whenever it is that the United States decides they are going to start to judge things the way they really are. The way they really are is known by everybody. Let me quote from our own State Department's International Narcotics Control Strategy Report for this year: Taking advantage of the 2,000 mile border between Mexico and the United States and the massive flow of legitimate trade and traffic, well entrenched polydrug trafficking organizations based in Mexico have built vast criminal empires that produce illicit drugs, smuggle hundreds of tons of South American cocaine, and operate drug distribution networks reaching well into the continental United States. Mexico is the principal transit route for South American cocaine, a major source of marijuana, and heroin, as well as a major supplier of methamphetamines to the illicit drug market in the United States. And nowhere but California do they understand the methamphetamine aspects of this better. Mexico is the transshipment point for at least 50 to 60 percent of the United States-bound cocaine shipments and up to 80 percent of the methamphetamine precursors. According to our U.S. health experts the consumption of methamphetamines is on the rise and may soon outdistance the use of cocaine as the drug of choice in the United States. Mexican-based drug trafficking organizations are the heart of this trade. The DEA reported in 1996 that: . . . criminal organizations from Mexico, deepening their involvement in methamphetamine production and distribution in the United States, have radically reshaped the trade. With access to wholesale suppliers of precursor chemicals on international markets . . . these groups can manufacture unprecedented quantities of high purity methamphetamine in large labs, both in Mexico and across the border in California. Mr. President, the problem is these very cartels have reached their tentacles so far into the Mexican structure that you really have to engage in the most extraordinary kind of effort in order to change what is happening. I recognize that there have been some positive steps here and there, but the fact is, they are truly small developments measured against what we know Mexico has to do and what we have asked Mexico to do. That is the true measure of cooperation. The fundamental problem in Mexico is the corruption that exists at any and all levels, even among those charged with fighting the drug effort. You see an occasional arrest, yes. But those arrests by Mexican authorities are not necessarily reflective of the commitment to root out drug traffickers, but rather of a well-coordinated plan by one cartel to eradicate the other by having law enforcement officials on their payroll. One of the reasons we did not immediately realize that Mexico's drug czar, Jesus Gutierrez Rebollo, was corrupt was because he arrested major drug traffickers but only those who worked for the rivals of the cartel that he worked for, that of Amado Carillo Fuentes. So, on February 18 the Mexican Defense Secretary, Enrique Cervantes announced that Gutierrez aided the Carillo cartel for 7 years by protecting cocaine shipments in exchange for vehicles, real estate and cash. It was his taste for the good life, not Mexican efforts to root out corruption, that caught him up. And you could read a number of journalistic accounts of what happened that show that it was actually accidental that Gutierrez finally got caught. Mexican authorities have also tried to tout the arrest and deportation of Juan Garcia Abrego, and there is no doubt that the Gulf cartel has been severely hurt by that. But what we are seeing, already, are indications that the only long term effect of those efforts is going to be to allow Carillo Fuentes to move in and takeover the Gulf cartel's operations. Likewise, efforts to target the Tijuana cartel, run by the Arellano-Felix brothers, are likely to wind up being orchestrated by Carillo Fuentes through his connections with corrupt law enforcement officials. Mr. President, what we are trying to do here today is be sensitive to the needs of a friend and of relationships. I hope, and I pray that President Zedillo will be able to move in the direction that he has indicated that he wants to move. Unlike Colombia where you have a top- down kind of corruption, in Mexico you have a bottom-up kind of corruption. President Zedillo is going to need all the help he can get. In my judgment what the United States Senate is going to do today, by going on record as supporting this resolution, will, hopefully, send a signal that all of us need to do more, that all of us need to hold each other up to a tougher standard, and that we need to ask Mexico to do more to help us stem this flow of drugs. Is that the whole deal? No. As I have made clear, the bulk of the responsibility is ours. Until we face up more to the demand side of the equation, it may seem difficult to be as demanding internationally. But that does not mean we should not be, and it does not mean that we must not ask a country as deeply affected by this as Mexico has been to begin to join us to a greater degree in this battle. It is my hope and my belief that this effort today will enable us to continue to cooperate while simultaneously sending an important signal about the seriousness of our certification process. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Yes.

Mr. KERRY. Come to cloture on these issues, and, if they can't come to that resolution, this should be on the floor of the Senate for us to deal with in a matter of legislative urgency. I know, Mr. President, that there is a significant group of us prepared to exercise every right available to us with respect to the Senate business in order to try to guarantee that we have the opportunity to act on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. KERRY. I will in just a moment. I would like to say to the majority leader that we would like to help the majority leader and others to leverage the reality here. What we would like to suggest is that there be sort of an internal date certain within the Senate--we would suggest that date be when we return--that, between now and when we return, the administration, the chairman, and the appropriate parties have to come to cloture. If they can't come to cloture----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the problem is that this particular convention stands in a different place from all of those other things which the majority leader has listed, and for obvious reasons. The other things don't have a drop-dead date on them which runs into the convention processes themselves, which are controlled by other countries--not by us. So I think everybody understands how it works around here. We could wind up in a situation where we would have a very long debate. And if we need to have a very long debate, we want to make certain that we have the ability to adequately flesh out concerns for all Members and still not run up against that deadline, or drop-dead date. So I think what we are really trying today to say to the majority leader is that this has to be the first priority when we come back, or clearly stated as to what the date will be with a date certain. All we are trying to do is help the majority leader convey that message to parties on his side because otherwise, obviously, we are left no choice but to try to do whatever we can to leverage a date. We are not precluding nor predetermining an outcome. But we are asking for the Senate to be able to exercise its rights and privileges.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to finish this colloquy.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to reiterate.

Mr. KERRY. I yield.

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that, Mr. President. I know that the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, is equally as versed and has had a long interest. I know that all of us believe very deeply that where there may be a legitimate question, we are and have been--and I think the administration has been--fully prepared to try to suggest legitimacy. But we can't allow an endless series of questions to be an excuse for putting us in the box where the U.S. Senate cannot perform its constitutional responsibility to advise and consent on a treaty as important as this one. So we are in the predicament here where we want to offer a good-faith effort to work through every single one of those particular issues. But we have to signal that we can't do so simultaneously taking away from ourselves our own rights to be guaranteed that the Senate ought to be able to have a vote.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the distinguished majority leader that, first of all, I thank him for taking the time to have this colloquy. I think it is very important. But let me say to the distinguished majority leader that during the years that I was the ranking member negotiating this with the distinguished chairman of committee, we traveled over all of this ground. We have had these hearings. The Foreign Relations Committee has had them. The Intelligence Committee has had them. The Armed Services Committee has had them. And we all know sort of what the clouds are that are there. There is no new sort of definition with respect to those clouds. For this Senator--and I know I speak for several other Senators, and I think two or three of them are on the floor right now--we do not want to wind up in the situation which I have seen previously. I negotiated the agreement that brought us to the floor last year with a vote. We all know we got caught up in the politics of the Presidential campaign, and that predicated that it may not have been the best moment. The problem is that we run out of time. The clock tolls on us automatically on April 29. We do not want to wind up in a situation where there is an ability on the floor to have so little time left that we can't work through the problems. Recognizing the road we have traveled here, I do not want to come back to a situation where we have kind of sat here while the negotiations are going on and then there is no window of opportunity to sufficiently let the legislative process work its will.

Mr. KERRY. I yield, without giving up my right to the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise for a few moments to speak with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention treaty. I notice the majority leader is here. I wanted to try to get the majority leader's attention for a moment, if I can. Mr. President, I know that Senator Biden, who is the ranking member of the committee, has been in discussions and negotiations with a number of parties, and many of us who have been deeply involved in this issue for a long period of time are growing increasingly concerned. I raised the subject of the Chemical Weapons Convention on the floor a couple weeks ago and signaled that a great many of us were growing sufficiently concerned that we are running out of legislative time on this important treaty that we were poised to consider coming to the floor and exercising whatever rights we have as Senators in order to try to guarantee a debate on it. For years, we have been making an effort to pass this convention or to pass a convention that regulates chemical weapons. The United States of America has made a policy decision not to produce them. So we are watching 161 nations who signed off on this, and 68 of whom have ratified it, come together without the United States to set up the protocol that will govern the verification and regulatory process for chemical weapons and their precursors for years to come. If we are not allowed in the U.S. Senate to debate this and have a vote, we will not have performed our constitutional responsibilities. I know the majority leader--he and I have had a number of conversations on this personally. I would like to begin now at least to ascertain publicly, and on the record, where we may be going so that we don't lose this critical time. I would like to know if the majority leader can guarantee us that we are going to have an opportunity to vote up or down on this convention, or whether we have to begin to be a little more creative.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the majority leader for his time on this. We will obviously be discussing it in the next day or so, and I look forward to our coming forward to some kind of mutual agreement. I thank the Chair. Mr. BINGAMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that the Senate will be in a period of morning business now, is that correct?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join with the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the Sudbury, Assabet and Concord [SuAsCo] Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Congressman Marty Meehan will introduce the companion bill today in the House. His bill will be cosponsored by the entire Massachusetts delegation as well as colleagues from New Hampshire and Connecticut. The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Rivers area is rich in history and literary significance. It has been the location of many historical events, most notably the Battle of Concord in the Revolutionary War, that gave our great Nation its independence. The Concord River flows under the North Bridge in Concord, MA where, on April 18, 1775, colonial farmers fired the legendary ``shot heard around the world'' which signaled the start of the Revolutionary War. In later years, this scenic area was also home to many of our literary heroes including Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Louisa May Alcott; their writing often focused on these bucolic rivers. Thoreau spent most of his life in Concord, MA where he passed his days immersed in his writing and enjoying the natural surroundings. He spoke of the Concord River when he wrote ``the wild river valley and the woods were bathed in so pure and bright a light as would have waked the dead, if they had been slumbering in their graves, as some suppose. There needs no strong proof of immortality.'' This area was held close to many an author's heart. It was a place of relaxation and inspiration for many. The SuAsCo bill would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include a 29-mile segment of the Assabet, Concord, and Sudbury Rivers. Based on a report authorized by Congress in 1990 and issued by the National Park Service in 1995, these river segments were determined worthy of inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. In its report, the SuAsCo Wild and Scenic Study Committee showed that this area has not only the necessary scenic, recreational and ecological value, but also the historical and literary value to merit the wild and scenic river designation. All eight communities in the area traversed by these river segments are supporting this important legislation. Our legislation is of minimal cost to the Federal Government, but by using limited Federal resources we can leverage significant local and State effort. Provisions in the bill limit the Federal Government's contribution to just $100,000 annually, with no more than a 50 percent share of any given activity. This is a concept that merits the support of Congress. Should our bill become law, the SuAsCo River Stewardship Council, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local governments would manage the land. We now have the opportunity to protect the precious 29-mile section of the Assabet, Sudbury, and Concord Rivers. This area is not only rich in ecological value but also in historical and literary value. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and through it to preserve this wild river valley for the enjoyment and instruction of all who live and work there, for visitors from throughout the Nation and, perhaps most importantly, for generations yet to come.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today four of this Nation's most remarkable nonprofit organizations are announcing the largest private sector investment in our Nation's affordable housing of all time. The Local Initiatives Support Corporation, Habitat for Humanity, the Enterprise Foundation and the National NeighborWorks Network have joined together and pledged to create 13 billion dollars' worth of housing over the next 4 years. This investment in our Nation's most economically challenged areas is testament to the dedication and commitment of these organizations to our inner cities and impoverished rural areas. Theirs is a visionary and comprehensive plan to leverage renewal--this unprecedented investment not only will create nearly 200,000 affordable homes but also rebuild entire communities once left to waste. As the ranking Democrat on the Housing Subcommittee, I am often privy to some of the most distressing cases of deprivation experienced by some of our fellow citizens. Joblessness, homelessness, lack of medical care, crumbling schools, rising cases of AIDS and other infectious diseases, and crime-riddled streets--those are too often the touchstones in the mosaic of urban America. However, today, the news is quite different as this pledge will stimulate tens of billions of dollars in additional private investment which in turn will create tens of thousands of jobs and new businesses in nearly 2,500 communities across the Nation. And, Mr. President, some of those communities are located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This investment will further strengthen the efforts of the Urban Edge Community Development Corp. in Jamaica Plain and the Codman Square Community Development Corp., to name just two of the many renewal success stories in Massachusetts. Mr. President, my home State enjoys a well-deserved reputation as the incubator of the Nation's most sophisticated, mature and comprehensive approaches to development in which housing is the cornerstone but the provision of goods and services and jobs forms the foundation. For many years, local community-based development groups and affordable housing advocates have worked with corporations and philanthropies like Bank Boston, Polaroid, the Boston Foundation, and the Hyams Foundation to generate and dedicate millions of dollars to urban renewal. Mr. President, I salute the commitment embodied in this pledge and I recognize that the challenge to match this dedication is ours. In these tough budgetary times, we must not allow important programs which stimulate economic and community renewal to wither in the sometimes blinding devotional light of the year 2002. I have stood in this Chamber on many occasions and discussed the importance of YouthBuild, CDBG's, the Low Income Housing Tax Credit, the Housing Preservation Program, and the Community Reinvestment Act. And today I stand resolute to bolster the Federal role in community-based development. Clearly, our national democracy is strengthened through this type of public- private partnership and I will redouble my efforts to assist community and local organizations which are making a vital and needed difference in towns and cities throughout our Nation. This is a day of good news, hope, and promise, Mr. President. Let us respond to the challenge with commensurate dedication to our Nation's communities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I commend the attention of the Senate to a significant new study released this week by BankBoston regarding the impact of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on the economy of the United States and of the world. Mr. President, we in Massachusetts have always known that MIT plays an outsized role in the economy of Massachusetts and of the United States, but this new study by BankBoston quantifies the impact. And the impact is staggering. The report shows that MIT graduates are responsible for the formation of over 4,000 companies worldwide, and the creation of over 1.1 million jobs, including 733,000 jobs in the United States. If MIT graduates constituted an economy all by themselves, they would be the 24th largest economy in the world. Just as significant, the report shows that fully 80 percent of the jobs created by MIT-related companies are manufacturing jobs, and that MIT-related companies are heavily invested in the production of goods and services for export outside the United States. In other words, the fruit of the sophisticated research and training offered at MIT is real jobs for real working Americans, and real net wealth for the U.S. economy. We are proud of MIT and its accomplishments, but what this Congress should appreciate about the new MIT study is not what it says about MIT, but what it says about our research universities throughout the country, for the MIT story is one that could easily be told at research universities throughout the United States. The moral of this story is that our historic Federal commitment to university-based research, and to support higher education, has paid off in jobs and in new wealth for this country, not to mention superior national security and continued advances for human health. As we face tough fiscal choices this year on the way to a sustainable balanced budget, we must keep the lessons of the MIT study in mind. We will ill serve this country if, in the name of sustaining our economy through a balanced budget, we underinvest in the very things--research and education--that have made this country the unquestioned economic leader it is today. I ask that the following article, ``Study Reveals Major Impact of Companies Started by MIT Alums,'' be printed in the Record. The article follows: Study Reveals Major Impact of Companies Started by MIT Alums (By Kenneth D. Campbell) In the first national study of the economic impact of a research university, BankBoston reported today that graduates of MIT have founded 4,000 firms which, in 1994 alone, employed 1.1 million people and generated $232 billion of world sales. ``If the companies founded by MIT graduates and faculty formed an independent nation, the revenues produced by the companies would make that nation the 24th-largest economy in the world,'' said the report, entitled ``MIT: The Impact of Innovation.'' Within the United States, the companies employed a total of 733,000 people in 1994 at more than 8,500 plants and offices in the 50 states--equal to one out of every 170 jobs in America. Eighty percent of the jobs in the MIT-related firms are in manufacturing (compared to 16 percent nationally), and a high percentage of products are exported. The 36-page BankBoston report, which is the result of an MIT survey of 1,300 CEOs and two years of fact-gathering and checking by MIT and the bank, ``represents a case study of the significant effect that research universities have on the economies of the nation and its 50 states.'' The study notes that many of the MIT-related founders also have degrees from other universities, and that these entrepreneurs maintain close ties with MIT or other research universities and colleges. ``In a national economy that is increasingly emphasizing innovation, these findings extend our understanding of how MIT has been instrumental in generating new businesses nationwide,'' said Wayne M. Ayers, chief economist of BankBoston. ``MIT is not the only university that has had a national impact of this kind, but because of its historical and continuing importance, it illustrates the contribution of research universities to the evolving national economy.'' MIT President Charles M. Vest, commenting on the report, said, ``About 90 percent of these companies have been founded in the past 50 years, in the period of the great research partnership between the federal government and research universities. The development of these business enterprises is one of the many beneficial spinoffs of federally funded research, which has brought great advances in such fields as health care, computing and communications.'' The five states benefiting most from MIT-related jobs are California (162,000), Massachusetts (125,000), Texas (84,000), New Jersey (34,000) and Pennsylvania (21,000). Thirteen other states have more than 10,000 MIT-related jobs--from west to east, Washington, 10,000; Oregon, 10,000; Colorado, 15,000; Kansas, 13,000; Iowa, 13,000; Wisconsin, 12,000; Illinois, 12,000; Ohio, 18,000; Virginia, 15,000; Georgia, 14,000; Florida, 15,000; New York, 15,000; and Connecticut, 10,000. Another 25 states have 1,000 to 9,000 jobs from MIT-related companies--Alabama, South Carolina, Missouri, and New Hampshire, 9,000; North Carolina, 8,000; Arizona and Michigan, 7,000; Maryland and Tennessee, 6,000; Kentucky, Minnesota, New Mexico, and Idaho, 5,000; Oklahoma, Indiana, Utah, Rhode Island and Arkansas, 2,500 to 5,000; Delaware, Louisiana, Maine, Nebraska, Nevada, West Virginia and Mississippi, 1,000 to 2,500 jobs. Only seven low-population states and the District of Columbia had less than 1,000 jobs from MIT-related companies. More than 2,400 companies have headquarters outside the Northeast. The report noted, ``MIT-related companies have a major presence in the San Francisco Bay area (Silicon Valley), southern California, the Washington-Baltimore-Philadelphia belt, the Pacific Northwest, the Chicago area, southern Florida, Dallas and Houston, and the industrial cities of Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania.'' The report said the MIT-related companies ``are not typical of the economy as a whole; they tend to be knowledge-based companies in software, manufacturing (electronics, biotech, instruments, machinery) or consulting (architects, business consultants, engineers). These companies have a disproportionate importance to their local economies because they usually sell to out-of-state and world markets, and because they so often represent advanced technologies.'' Other industries represented include manufacturing firms in chemicals, drugs, materials and aerospace, as well as energy, publishing and finance companies. ``Firms in software, electronics (including instruments, semiconductors and computers) and biotech form a special subset of MIT-related companies. They are at the cutting edge of what we think of as high technology. They are more likely to be planning expansion than companies in other industries. They tend to export a higher percentage of their products, hold one or more patents, and spend more of their revenues on research and development,'' the report said. In interviews, MIT graduates cited several factors at MIT which spurred them on to take the risk of starting their own companies: faculty mentors, cutting-edge technologies, entrepreneurial spirit and ideas. The study profiled seven MIT founders who started companies in Maryland, Massachusetts, California, Washington state, Illinois and Florida. Nearly half of all company founders who responded to the MIT survey maintain significant ties to MIT and other research universities in their area. The findings of the study also reveal: MIT graduates and faculty have been forming an average of 150 new firms a year since 1990. In Massachusetts, the 1,065 MIT-related companies represent 5 percent of total state employment and 10 percent of the state's economic base (sales in other states and the world). MIT-related firms account for about 25 percent of sales of all manufacturing firms and 33 percent of all software sales in the state. The study also looked at employment around the nation and the world from MIT-related companies. Massachusetts firms related to MIT had world employment of 353,000; California firms had 348,000 world jobs. Other major world employers included firms in Texas, 70,000; Missouri, 63,000; New Jersey, 48,000; Pennsylvania, 41,000; and New Hampshire, 35,000. In determining the location of a new business, the 1,300 entrepreneurs surveyed said the quality of life in their community, proximity to key markets and access to skilled professionals were the most important factors, followed by access to skilled labor, low business cost, and access to MIT and other universities. The companies include 220 companies based outside the United States, employing 28,000 people worldwide. Some of the earliest known MIT-related companies still active are Arthur D. Little, Inc. (1886), Stone and Webster (1889), Campbell Soup (1900) and Gillette (1901). The report said the MIT-related companies would rank as the 24th-largest world economy because the $232 billion in world sales ``is roughly equal to a gross domestic product of $116 billion, which is a little less than the GDP of South Africa and more than the GDP of Thailand.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this has been an unusually enlightening--if a bit protracted--debate. We have had this discussion before on a number of occasions and I assume we will have it again during this Congress. It is my fervent hope that emerging from all this discussion will be a general understanding on the part of the American people that there is a discernable difference between a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution and a balanced budget itself. Mr. President, this amendment is as fundamentally flawed this year as it was last year. As it is currently drafted, I cannot support it. I have come to the floor previously to discuss the detrimental effects of this proposed amendment to the Constitution. I have discussed at length the particularly odious issue of the amendment's supermajority requirement. As I have illustrated in the past, Mr. President, the most compelling arguments against this amendment as drafted come from the real experts, the Framers of the Constitution. I would contend that were they here on the floor of the Senate today, they would to a person vote against this amendment because it violates the Constitution's most basic tenet--majority rule. I have researched this issue, Mr. President; allow me to review it briefly. In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton called a requirement for a quorum of more than a majority poison for a deliberative body. Poison, Mr. President, is Hamilton's word, chosen by a Founding Father of our democracy, not this Senator from Massachusetts in 1997. Let me explore Hamilton's thought further. He elaborates pointedly that: The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or something approaching toward it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of the Government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. Hamilton, Mr. President, was concerned that the requirement of more than a majority would allow the minority to rule simply by not showing up. ``This situation,'' he said, ``must always savor of weakness-- sometimes border on anarchy.'' Harsh words, Mr. President, but again, not mine. They were written two centuries ago but could not be more prescient and more appropriate for this debate. Knowing his thoughts on the issue of a supermajority quorum, how do you think Hamilton would vote if he stood among us today? And how do you think Hamilton and the rest of our Founding Fathers would feel if they knew that a collection of Members of Congress could pass a constitutional amendment which contains a provision allowing it to be waived? Mr. President, the notion that a part of our most fundamental document of law can be set aside for a time is ludicrous and anathema to the very reasons for having such a governing document at all. That's not to say that, given the wording of this constitutional amendment proposal, the capability to waive is not needed; emphatically, it is. But that necessity does not remove the strong undesirability of permitting a waiver of a provision of our fundamental governing document. Mr. President, if that is not enough to dissuade Senators from supporting such a poorly drafted amendment to our Constitution, let me explore further what is wrong with the proposal before us. I have come to the floor previously and discussed the inherent and unprecedented problems with a process which would lead to the Congress ceding to the judiciary the power vested in it by the citizenry of this Nation to formulate a budget. Last year when we considered this amendment, Walter Dellinger, an assistant attorney general, testified before the Judiciary Committee. Let me remind my colleagues of his analysis. He testified that: should the measure be enforced by the Judiciary, it would produce an unprecendented restructuring of the balance of power between the branches of government. If it proves unenforceable, it would create a quite different but equally troubling hazard; by writing an empty promise into the fundamental charter of our government, it would breed cynicism about our government and diminish respect for the Constitution of the United States and for the rule of law. The distinguished professor of law Archibald Cox concurred with this view. He states that this amendment: would spawn disputes and charges of violation without providing either the means of resolving the disputes or remedies for the actual threatened violations, except to bring the courts * * * into a field for which they are totally unequipped by experience. Indeed, the courts are totally unequipped by experience, Mr. President, to contend with this amendment should it be made part of our Constitution. Unelected judges would be forced to order the Government to reduce or stop paying benefits--like Social Security or Medicare--or to cut Federal spending. Perhaps the current majority in the Senate has no dispute with that. But think of it, Mr. President, unelected judges also could order Congress to increase taxes to enforce the constitutional requirement to balance the budget. And this has happened in our country, I tell my friends on the other side of the aisle, in the case of Missouri versus Jenkins. But Mr. President, what I believe most renders this amendment as drafted unacceptable is that it would achieve the exact opposition of its ostensible intention. I suppose the proponents believe that this amendment to the Constitution would restore and demand fiscal discipline of the Congress and the Government. But, Mr. President, deficit reduction, in and of itself, is not an economic policy. The jagged, complex, and sometimes unpredictable nexus between fiscal and monetary policy forces us to maintain comprehensive economic foresight and vision--be vigilant of budget constraints, mindful of the markets, cooperative with our chief trading partners, careful with inflation and unemployment, responsive to the needy, and watchful of the business cycle. Those are the ingredients of the plan the Democrats enacted in 1993. That's why we reduced the deficit by two-thirds in 4 years. By 1996, the Federal deficit had shrunk to 1.4 percent of the gross domestic product from 4.7 percent in 1993. That's why inflation and interest rates and unemployment are at an all-time low. That's why the market is breaking records. That's why the current economic expansion is one of the most prolonged positive business cycles in this century. And, that's what makes the current debate on this amendment all the more ironic. Economist after economist including Nobel laureates and Alan Greenspan will tell you that this amendment, as drafted, will wreak havoc on the Nation's economy. The amendment before us requires the budget to operate at balance or surplus, whether economic growth is strong or weak. It requires a balanced budget even if economic growth is negative. Let me take a moment and explore the consequences of that, Mr. President. One of the greatest economic achievements of the 20th century has been the unglamorous but vital responsive economic system installed by the U.S. Government in the aftermath of the Second World War. It is obvious in periods of stagnant economic growth that revenues rise more slowly. Higher unemployment, fewer people working, fewer people paying taxes; slower growth, economic and business contraction, fewer companies paying taxes. Mr. President, this is not difficult to understand. When these unfortunate economic slowdowns occur now, we have a system which alleviates some of the pain felt by individuals and companies, and eases us back into economic growth. Federal spending increases--especially on programs like unemployment insurance--and outlays necessarily exceed revenues. That is economic sense, Mr. President. This amendment, as it is drafted, works against economic reality and risks making recessions more frequent and turning recessions into depressions. And I make this statement not based on economic theory cooked up in an ivory tower or a think-tank downtown. I make it based on the real-life experience of this country during the dark days of the 1930's. After the stock market crashed in 1929, revenues dropped and Congress pursued an economic program which consisted of spending cuts and tax increases: the exact course which this amendment would dictate. What was the result then, Mr. President? This country experienced its most destructive depression. The spending cuts and tax increases drained purchasing power from the country and helped make the downturn deeper. This amendment will exacerbate the natural business cycle of expansion and recession. Since the Great Depression and World War II, we have made enormous progress in reducing the rollercoaster of the boom and bust cycles and this amendment would strip us of that progress and its protections. It would remove the fiscal buffer the Federal Government has in place and leave the States and individual Americans and American companies to bear the brunt of economic downturns. The former Director of the Congressional Budget Office, Robert Reischauer, agrees. He argues: A balanced budget rule could make it even harder to conduct discussions of policies on their own merits, and could lead to distortions of policies simply to meet budget goals. * * * Burdens might be shifted to State and local governments or to the private sector even when the public good would be enhanced by keeping the programs at the Federal level. Well, Mr. President, my State can't handle this. For the last two decades, Massachusetts has been a recession-prone State. In the late 1980's, the economy of New England collapsed. While we have crept out of the ruins of unemployment and business loss, we must be vigilant not to return. Back in the 1980's and early 1990's, I fought hard to alleviate the recession in Massachusetts by continuing the flow of Federal dollars into the Commonwealth and easing its credit crunch. Mr. President, Federal funds were instrumental in jump-starting economic growth in Massachusetts: My home State receives more Federal funding than 43 other States on a per capita basis and 17 percent more than the average State. Massachusetts State secretariats are highly dependent on Federal expenditures to help residents of the State overcome the negative effects of recessions: In the last fiscal year, Federal dollars provided nearly 80 percent of the funding for Massachusetts' Health and Human Services secretariat, 77 percent of the education secretariat budget, more than half of the housing and community development budget and 43 percent of the transportation and construction spending. If an amendment to the Constitution mandates a balanced budget and my State experiences an economic downturn, it will be at the mercy of the supermajority of 65 Senators who would have to join me and Senator Kennedy in releasing more funds, if necessary, to combat that recession and prevent it from wreaking greater havoc. Again, Mr. President, this is not pie-in-the-sky speculation. The Commonwealth Center for Fiscal Policy predicts that ``a fiscal crisis looms for Massachusetts.'' Our fragile State economy will be tested at a time when the Federal Government continues to threaten cuts to vital transfer payments to States. Mr. President, I oppose this amendment as it is drafted for all the constitutional and economic reasons I have outlined. Before I conclude, I must note to my colleagues that I find it enormously ironic that over the next few weeks, we will all line up to vote for one budget or another that balances by the year 2002. In fact, the President has already submitted his plan and it is, as far as I know, the first one on the table to reach balance by that date. I have not yet seen any plan from my Republican colleagues, but I am confident that when they assemble one, it, too, will balance by 2002. So, you see, Mr. President, we all agree on that. Isn't it ironic that now, of all times, the drumbeat for a constitutional amendment grows louder? Mr. President, where was that drumbeat in the 1980's, when President Reagan was running unprecedented deficits? When no balanced budget was in sight? Let us call this exercise what it is and get back to work to restore fiscal responsibility the old-fashioned way--through hard work, not by headline grabbing. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to recognize and commend the efforts of over 250 community residents from all over New England who are meeting next weekend in Boston at the First New England Community Leadership Institute. The 3-day conference of 34 classes, 16 roundtable discussions, and 4 networking group sessions is designed to educate, rejuvenate, empower, and excite the core constituents of the NeighborWorks Network of over 50 New England low- and-moderate-income communities. These new and emerging leaders are concerned about events taking place in their communities, willing to take on these challenges, and eager to become part of the solution. At this event, they will be able to share experiences and solutions, motivate and encourage each other, and lead their neighborhoods into the 21st century. I would like to commend the tremendous leadership potential of the participants and their remarkable commitment to improving their neighborhoods. Without their support and hard work, the programs, initiatives, and collaborations being formed at the State and Federal level cannot succeed. In the neighborhoods in which these citizens work, we can already begin to see change taking place in the rising home ownership rates, decreasing crime rates, and growing community pride. These residents represent the best hope of the future in our neighborhoods and Massachusetts is proud to welcome them.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today on the front page of the Washington Post there is a story that I think should not simply slide by the concern and consideration of all our colleagues in the Senate. The headline is, ``GOP Senators Seek To Curb Panel's Fund-Raising Probe.'' The heart of the story is a basic expression, on behalf of some Senators, that they only want to focus on President Clinton. They do not want an investigation that somehow looks into the activities of the Congress itself. I know the Congress is plenty good at taking care of itself. Through history it has proven that. But the American people will not be satisfied with such an extraordinary, brazen, overt statement of unwillingness to heed the interests of the American people and to get to the bottom of any allegations of wrongdoing in any kind of fundraising. Anyone who suggests we can just sweep this under the rug because people are nervous up here, or somehow they think that looking at congressional inquiries might become the instigator of reform, and therefore, because they don't want reform, they are not going to investigate, is one of the most extraordinary efforts of turning your back on the interests of what we are supposed to be doing here and of the American people. I will signal for myself, and I think there are other Senators who feel this way--no one is looking for some no-holds-barred embarrassment here. No one is looking for some fishing expedition. But where there are legitimate examples and legitimate allegations with respect to congressional abuses, it would simply be inappropriate for the Congress of the United States to sweep it under the rug and walk away because we fear whatever that might tell us. It would be even more inappropriate to do so because we fear reform. I can think of nothing that would invite a storm of protest from the American people over a period of time more than that kind of front page statement about the congressional willingness to sweep something under the rug. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, as my colleague from Rhode Island has mentioned, this afternoon, when we come out of the caucuses, we will vote on the vitally important issue of the release of funding for international population programs. I strongly support the President's finding which states that the funding restriction placed on the previously appropriated population funds ``is having a negative impact on the proper functioning of the population planning program.'' I strongly agree with that finding. The delayed funding, combined with the massive cuts are not only doing significant damage to international family planning programs, but quite literally is threatening the lives of thousands of women and children worldwide. I hope no one here will underestimate the importance of this vote. It is about values--the values we place on the importance of women's health, child survival, and population assistance. The vote is not about increasing or decreasing funds. The damage of large funding cuts unfortunately already has occurred. We will vote now simply on whether we will release previously appropriated funds for population assistance 5 months late into the fiscal year, or 9 months late into the fiscal year. Let me remind my colleagues that these delays have been going on now for a year and a half, and the cumulative effect is extremely enormously negative. These programs are on the brink of bankruptcy and are close to shutting down because they have already sustained a 35-percent cut since 1995. In dollar figures, this means a cut from $547 million in 1995 to $385 million in 1997, compounded by a year and a half of unprecedented delays in metering out that which has been appropriated at the trickling rate of 8 percent per month. This should not be a partisan issue. The health and survival of women and children and efforts to reduce infant mortality are not, or should not be, partisan issues. I joined then-Senator Alan Simpson in representing the United States at the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, where the United States was a major leader in galvanizing the international community to action. U.S. leadership was based on bipartisan values about international family planning. The conference brought together people from around the world--of all religious, nationality, and ethnic groups--working together toward responsible methods of family planning, and education, and to establish a platform from which to build toward the availability of these crucial social services in all corners of the globe. However, since the conference in Cairo, some Members of the United States Congress have made it their mission to erode the bipartisan base from which the U.S. pledged to lead by slashing funds and delaying the release of those funds. I think this is punitive, it is indefensible, and it is wrong. Today we have the opportunity to right at least a small part of this wrong by releasing the previously appropriated funds for population assistance March 1 instead of July 1. In my judgement it is a matter of fundamental responsibility that we approve the Presidential finding that confirms the harm these delays are causing families worldwide, and prevent further delay is making the funds available. Mr. President, if we do not do this, it means shutting the door to thousands of women and families worldwide who have asked for the opportunity to simply, take control of their lives and their health, and responsibly plan their families. We have succeeded in the difficult task of raising public awareness of the benefits of family planning. As one program coordinator in Nigeria said, ``It is one thing to raise public awareness but if there is no access to birth control for poor women, what use is awareness?'' We cannot turn our backs now. We must follow through. Let me stress: This vote is not about abortion, as some Senators have tried to argue. Opponents of family planning programs mistakenly believe that funds for these programs enable women to have abortions. That is erroneous emotionalism, Mr. President. We should look at the facts. The fact is that, by law, no U.S. assistance can be used to pay for abortions anywhere in the world. The irony is that the anti-abortion advocates who oppose these programs are actually increasing the incidence of abortions they decry by denying women the means to responsibly space their children. As our former colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield, a well respected prolife leader in support for population funding, articulated in a letter to Representative Chris Smith, * * * ``you are contributing to an increase of abortions worldwide because of the funding restrictions on which you insisted * * *. It is a proven fact that when contraceptive services are not available to women throughout the world, abortion rates increase.'' I ask my colleagues, whether you are in favor of abortion or not, to approve the Presidential finding and the earlier release of family planning funds. This is assuredly a vote for women's health, because it will determine whether we give or deny women in impoverished countries a critical ingredient they need to lead healthy lives and raise healthy children.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I might say to my friend from North Dakota that he raises a most important issue, and it is obviously one that we are going to have a tremendous tug-of-war on around here. It is my hope, representing a State with very old infrastructure and with enormous public works projects, a very large population in an urban area, that as we approach this we are not going to get dragged into a fractionalized, regionalized, State-versus-State, haves-versus-have- nots issue. But, rather, that we are going to think this through in terms of the overall needs of the Nation which he has appropriately addressed with respect to his State and his region. I think the key here is to make sure we come out with an adequate amount of infrastructure investment for the country as a whole and with an appropriate division of that. I certainly intend to work with him and others, but I think we need to guarantee that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to talk about an issue of enormous importance to our national security and express my hope that during the course of the next week, while the U.S. Senate is out of session, Senators will focus on and think hard about our responsibilities with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention. More than 100 years of international efforts to ban chemical weapons, 100 years of effort, culminated January 13, 1993, in the final days of the Bush administration when the United States of America signed the Chemical Weapons Convention as one of the original signatories. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will focus closely on the efforts of former President Bush, former National Security Adviser General Scowcroft, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Powell, and so many other people whose bona fides with respect to issues of national security I do not believe have ever been at issue. They all worked hard and fought hard to bring this Convention to a successful conclusion. Since the time the United States signed it as one of the original signatories, 160 other nations have joined in signing it. That is 161, I might say, out of a total of 190 independent states that compose the world community of nations. Immediately after the signing, the process of ratification by the signatories began. The convention was submitted to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent in November 1993, and multiple hearings have been held by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Judiciary Committee during both the 103d and the 104th Congresses. As of January 27, 1997, 68 nations have already ratified the Convention, but not the United States of America that helped lead the effort of its creation. This Convention provides that it will take force and its provisions will become applicable to party nations 180 days following its ratification by the 65th nation. The 65th ratification occurred late last year, so the clock is now ticking toward the date on which it enters into force. The Convention will enter into force on April 29 of this year, just a little more than 2 months after we return from the recess period that begins later today. It is important to understand the provisions of the Convention, especially when measured against that date. The Convention bans the development, production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons by its signatories. It also requires the destruction of virtually all chemical weapons and production facilities. This treaty also provides the most extensive, most intrusive verification regime of any arms control treaty yet negotiated, extending its coverage not only to governmental and military but also to civilian facilities. The fact is that this verification package provides, in the end, increased security to the United States. That verification package includes instrument monitoring, both routine and random inspections, and challenge inspections for sites that are suspected of chemical weapons storage or production. The Convention also requires export controls and reporting requirements on chemicals that can be used as warfare agents and their precursors. In order to implement its provisions and to administer them on an ongoing basis, the Convention establishes the Organization for Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, or the OPCW. This organization is permanently charged with ensuring compliance with the Convention's requirements and with monitoring the chemical industry and the chemical production throughout the world. The Convention's preparatory commission, which is located in The Hague, is currently determining precisely how the permanent organization is going to be structured and how the Convention is going to be implemented. Every State that ratifies that Convention has to complete the destruction of chemical weapons agents, munitions and production facilities within 10 years of the Convention's entry into force, or its date of ratification, whichever comes earlier. I would like to describe what the treaty accomplishes in terms of control of chemicals and their precursors and monitoring and tracking of those chemicals and precursors. The Convention establishes three lists, or schedules as they are called, of chemical warfare agents and their precursor chemicals. These are arranged in the order of their importance to chemical weapons production and the extent of their legitimate peaceful or commercial uses. The OPCW Technical Secretariat will update those schedules as needed and as circumstances change. And the production, the use, or the transfer of any chemicals on these schedules above set minimal amounts must be projected prospectively by the manufacturers and subsequently reported annually to the OPCW. Any facility that makes use of or is capable of producing scheduled chemicals has to register with the OPCW, as do facilities that produce over 30 metric tons annually of a discrete chemical containing phosphorous, sulphur or fluorine. So, Mr. President, what we gain here is a mechanism for knowing globally who produces what chemicals, how much they produce, and where these chemicals are going. The inspections of chemical facilities provided by the Convention will vary according to the nature of the chemicals. Those declared as producing, storing, or destroying chemical weapons are subject to systematic on-site inspection and continuous instrument monitoring. Those chemical facilities declared as nonchemical weapons facilities are subject to routine or random inspections, depending on the schedule or schedules on which the chemicals they produce or handle are listed. All other facilities that produce or handle or are suspected of producing or handling chemicals are subject to on-site challenge inspections upon the request of a signatory nation. So, I reiterate, under the terms of the Convention we will achieve for the first time the ability to know who is producing what chemicals, how much they produce, and where these chemicals are moving, and we obtain the ability to inspect any of those chemical production or handling entities. Signatory nations agree not to export the most troublesome chemicals, those listed in schedule 1, to any nonsignatory nation. Schedule 2 chemicals may be traded with nonsignatory nations for only 3 years after the Convention enters into force, and schedule 3 chemicals, which are the least troublesome and most widely used commercially, can be freely traded for 5 years after the Convention comes into force so long as end-use certification is provided. Five years after the Convention comes into force, additional controls will be considered and may be required. Now, Mr. President, one might reasonably expect that all those in this institution would by their study of history be aware of the occasions when chemical weapons have been used in conflicts and the horrifying effects that they can have and have had on both combatants and noncombatants, and one would think those with such an awareness would warmly embrace and applaud the successful negotiation and apparent widespread acceptance of this Convention among the nations of the world. The images, both visual and verbal, of the effects of chemical weapons have seared themselves into our minds. We know the effects of mustard gas in the trenches of Europe in World War I. We know of the terrible effect of chemicals employed in the Iran-Iraq War. Americans have witnessed the anguish of those who served in the gulf war who are suffering from maladies that may have resulted from some exposure to chemical weapons amassed by Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Civilized people everywhere have been repelled by the effects of these horrible weapons. Indeed, that is what propelled us under a Republican administration to negotiate and then to sign this Convention. One might reasonably anticipate, therefore, that the United States, which led the way for so many years in seeking allies among the community of nations in the effort to outlaw these weapons and their use, and which was the driving force behind the negotiations that produced the Chemical Weapons Convention, would see virtually universal support for the ratification of this critical treaty. But that is not the case, as my colleagues know. Most unfortunately, a small group of Senators, primarily within one segment of the Republican Party, and nourished by a group of committed cold warriors whose reflexive behavior is to see catastrophe for the United States in any arms control agreement, has dedicated itself to preventing the Senate from approving ratification of this Convention. They have found shadows behind the trees, and express great fear that United States participation could somehow weaken our Nation militarily and leave us vulnerable to a reemergent Russia or to some rogue nation that refuses to abide by the Convention's requirements. I want to emphasize that while I believe those conclusions are entirely unwarranted, I take no issue with anybody who wants to proceed cautiously here. I take no issue with anybody who asserts that conceivably there is some downside to the Convention, and it is appropriate for us to have legitimate debate about that. But legitimate debate and legitimate expressions of caution are different from standing in the way of the U.S. Senate being able to resolve this issue in a vote on the floor of the Senate and allowing the Senate to perform its critical constitutional responsibilities of advise and consent. I agree it would be a mistake for this Nation to blindly assume that simply as a result of the disappearance of the Soviet Union we will never again face a serious threat from Russia or from some other nation whose interests conflict with our own. That, of course, is why we spend $250-plus billion on defense every year. But the vehemence with which these Senators oppose the Convention, and their rationales for so doing, persuade me that the principal problem is not the Convention itself or its terms, but the fact that it is simply not a perfect treaty, that it is not 100 percent leakproof or 100 percent verifiable. We cannot establish such a standard, Mr. President, for by so doing, we effectively would say that no arms control treaty could ever be in our national interest. Mr. President, I reject the notion that there is no such thing as a good arms control treaty, a treaty that advances the interests of the United States effectively. I specifically reject the notion that the Chemical Weapons Convention does anything to diminish the national security of our Nation, or that it is not in our national interest. To the contrary, I believe that our Nation and our people will be safer and more secure and, in fact, will be the entire world community of nations, if the United States joins the other nations which have ratified it. More importantly, Mr. President, that is not just my belief. It is the belief of former Presidents of the United States. It is the belief of the Chairman and Members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the belief of the current and immediate past Directors of Central Intelligence, the current and immediate past Secretaries of Defense, Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf and a host of others whose credentials as national security experts are sterling. So let us address the specific concerns that are raised by those who would rather see the United States not participate in this convention, and who would deprive the Senate of the opportunity to debate the convention on the floor and vote on the resolution of ratification as the American people should be able to expect. The opponents claim that the Chemical Weapons Convention will not be effective because it fails to ban or control possession of all chemicals that could be used for lethal purposes, specifically including two agents used with deadly effect in World War I, phosgene and hydrogen cyanide. The reality is that the CWC does cover all toxic chemicals and their precursors ``except where intended for purposes not prohibited under this Convention * * *'' Phosgene and hydrogen cyanide are explicitly listed in schedule 3 of the convention. The convention also contains a provision to expand the list of chemicals subject to declaration and verification as new CW agents are developed and identified. The opponents claim that the CWC is not global, since many dangerous nations--for example, Iran, Syria, North Korea, and Libya--have not agreed to join the treaty regime. The reality, however, is that of the approximately 20 nations believed to have or to be seeking a chemical weapons program, more than two-thirds have already signed the convention. The failure of the United States to ratify the treaty is unlikely to spur these countries to become signatories and relinquish any determination they may have to develop chemical weapons. And, indeed, our failure to ratify will actually give to those recalcitrant countries political cover for their failure to join. If the United States does not join, why should they care about it? If the United States, which initially sought it and long worked for it, now finds something wrong with the convention, then they have justification to also assert something is wrong with it. Further, several of the Convention's key provisions are targeted directly at nonparticipating nations. Some of the most threatening chemicals cannot be sold to nonparticipating nations by signatories and chemical trade with the nonsignatories will be impeded in other ways. In this important respect the treaty is, indeed, global in its reach. In effect, those who claim to be defending the interests of the United States are, I believe, unwittingly--and I know not purposefully--aiding those countries that would continue to be rebellious nonparticipants in the work of removing chemical weapons from the earth. If the opponents mean to point out that all convention provisions do not apply to all nations, OK, they are correct. Not all provisions apply to those 30 or fewer nations that have not yet signed the convention and may choose never to sign or ratify. But there is no way that one sovereign nation can force another to enter into a treaty. But you can, through a treaty, isolate those nations that choose not to sign, and, indeed, make it extraordinarily difficult for them to pursue their nefarious objectives. This treaty will, very definitely, according to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the intelligence community, and many others in our defense establishment whose judgment and expertise I respect in their specialties, have significant constraining effects even on nonsignatories. It will be far more difficult for a nonsignatory to proceed to develop a chemical weapons program and to produce chemical weapons, and it will be much more likely--not 100 percent certain but much more likely--that we will know if they do so. The opponents claim that the CWC is not verifiable, Mr. President. Well, the reality is that the intelligence community and the Department of Defense have testified that the convention, while not being perfectly verifiable to be sure, will facilitate the ability of our intelligence agencies to detect significant violations in a timely manner, because it provides additional tools to do the job of tracking the spread of chemical weapons--a job that we would have to do anyway, with or without the Chemical Weapons Convention and its tools. In fact, it is the acknowledged difficulty of detecting chemical weapons and their production, frankly, that makes the CWC all the more important. Our intelligence community needs all the additional tools and advantages it can get to make it more likely that such weapons and production will be identified, and identified as early as possible. The CWC provides critical tools and advantages, and the intelligence community and Defense Department have urged the Senate to approve its ratification. The opponents claim that the convention will be toothless in application and that violations, once identified, will go unsanctioned. This, of course, is totally conjectural, and nothing in the verbiage of any treaty can absolutely guarantee that every provision will be enforced or every violation effectively sanctioned. But recent experience with the North Korean nuclear program demonstrates that governments can and will respond to evidence of noncompliance and will act to uphold the integrity of an arms control agreement--in this case, the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am of the opinion, personally, that violations of the Chemical Weapons Convention will result in a strong reaction by the community of nations that is participating in it--but that is my opinion. The only demonstrable fact, in response to the fear expressed by opponents, is that with the Chemical Weapons Convention, there is a multilateral mechanism to define objectionable actions and the basis on which to organize an international response. Those are both advantages that do not exist today. The opponents claim that the Chemical Weapons Convention will create a massive new United Nations-type international inspection bureaucracy, which will result in costs to our taxpayers of as much as $200 million per year. The reality is that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated the U.S. costs to comply with declaration, inspection, and verification procedures of the CWC will average $33 million per year, an amount which includes our annual assessment to the OPCW of $25 million. That is considerably less than $200 million. The active involvement of our negotiators in developing the treaty requirements applying to the OPCW ensures that it will undertake only essential tasks, and will do so efficiently. After the trillions of dollars our taxpayers spent defending our Nation during the cold war, and in the face of the terrible threats of chemical weapons, I believe--and this is shared by the President, the intelligence community, and the defense community--that an expenditure of $33 million a year for U.S. costs of participating in the CWC, and for guaranteeing for the first time intrusive tracking of chemical agents and precursors, is a very, very good buy for the taxpayers. The opponents claim that the Convention will jeopardize our citizens' constitutional rights by requiring the U.S. Government to permit searches without either warrants or probable cause. Mr. President, that is not true. The reality is that most firms that will be subjected to CWC inspections will voluntarily grant access for that purpose. And it is important to note here that the vast majority of the chemical industry of the United States is supportive of this treaty. The strong support of that industry and its active involvement during the CWC negotiations strengthen the belief that, in fact, most of the firms subject to inspection will not object to the inspections. But if a firm does exercise its constitutional right to object, then, Mr. President, the U.S. Government is committed to fully complying with our constitutional requirements. In such a case the Government will obtain a search warrant prior to an inspection to ensure that the constitutional rights of any citizen are fully protected. The opponents claim that the Convention will subject as many as 8,000 companies across the Nation to new reporting requirements, entailing uncompensated annual compliance costs that could reach hundreds of thousands of dollars for each. The reality is that it will not affect 8,000, it will affect only about 2,000 companies. Approximately 1,800 of those 2,000 companies will not have to do anything more onerous than check a box on a form regarding production range. They will not even be required to specify which chemicals they produce. Most of the firms for which compliance activities will be more extensive are supporters of the treaty, and directly, or through their industry association, were consulted as the CWC provisions affecting commercial facilities were negotiated. The Convention's opponents generally fail to mention the fact that the biggest cost to the U.S. chemical industry is likely to come as a result of the United States failing to ratify the Convention. According to the Chemical Manufacturers Association, the trade restrictions on export of chemicals that will apply to nonparticipating nations will place at risk $600 million in annual export sales for U.S. companies. It is a very material fact that the Chemical Weapons Convention is primarily about increasing the safety of the United States, of our troops, and our citizens from the chemical weapons of other nations. During the Bush administration, the decision was made for the United States to leave the chemical weapons business and to destroy the vast majority of our stockpile of chemical weapons--all those that the CWC would require to be destroyed. It is very important that we understand this. The Bush administration has already embarked this Nation on a course that will result in the destruction of our stockpile of chemical weapons. That process already is underway, and it will continue whether or not we ratify the Convention. Does it not make sense, then, if we are stripping ourselves of these weapons anyway, for us to take steps to increase the likelihood that other nations will do the same, and that we will know if some nations choose to manufacture and stockpile such weapons? There certainly is no reason for the United States to refuse to ratify the CWC because it in some way would impede the maintenance or production of weapons deemed important to our national security. The decision to destroy our chemical weapons was made years ago, during the Bush administration. It is not a decision that any of our defense leadership suggests should be reversed. Last fall, after the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had favorably reported the resolution of ratification for the convention on a strong bipartisan vote, the convention was caught up, most unfortunately, in Presidential politics. Mr. President, as the ranking member of a subcommittee with jurisdiction over other matters that Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Helms had linked to action on the Convention, I had worked hard with Senator Helms and others to get an agreement to bring the ratification resolution to the floor. While he was majority leader, Senator Dole agreed that we should have a vote on that resolution, and we secured a unanimous consent agreement that ensured the Senate would consider and vote on the resolution of ratification before the end of the 105th Congress. But then, in the heat of Presidential politics, although President Clinton strongly supported ratification of the convention, Senator Dole, as the Republican nominee for President, suddenly announced opposition to the CWC. That called into question whether the necessary two-thirds majority vote for ratification could be secured. So we delayed action on the resolution. Mr. President, the time for action on this convention has arrived. It is now. We are beyond the complications of a Presidential election. We have held the hearings, many hearings, in four separate Senate committees. We know the facts. The support of the defense and intelligence communities and leaders is strong and clear. And now there is one more very important reason for expeditious action to approve the resolution of ratification. If the United States has not ratified this convention by the time it takes effect on April 29, by its terms U.S. citizens will be ineligible for appointment to the OPCW administrative staff and corps of international inspectors, and, therefore, we will forfeit the opportunity to influence its decisions, its budget, and inspection practices that our negotiators led the way to secure. To be sure, if the United States later ratifies, Mr. President, American citizens will become eligible for such posts but only as they become vacant at some point in the future. Our Nation will have irrevocably lost out in the vitally important initial formative policy making and procedure development. As scores of newspaper editorials around the country have said, those who believe the threat of chemical weapons is real, and who realize that our intelligence and defense organizations need all the help they can get to identify where chemical weapons are being manufactured and stockpiled, must not let a small group of Senators prevent the U.S. Senate from acting on this important treaty. I urge the majority leader to act in the interest of our country and our people and, in the interest of our institution and its constitutional right and duty to advise and consent to treaties, to permit the Senate to act on this treaty, which I believe a significant majority of this body supports. We cannot permit the perfect to become the enemy of the good. We must not permit those who make that mistake to prevent us from acting in the best interests of our Nation and its people. And we cannot allow some cloudy objections to obviate the facts and prevent this institution from discharging its responsibilities. I believe it would be a grave mistake to deprive our Nation, our Armed Forces, and our citizens of the additional protections from the threat of chemical weapons that the Chemical Weapons Convention offers. And I think it would be foolish for the United States to relinquish the influence it will gain in implementing this critical treaty if it fails to ratify the Convention by April 29. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for his forbearance. I yield the floor. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.