John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I commend the attention of my colleagues in the Senate to seven public elementary schools in my home State of Massachusetts which have been nominated for recognition as Blue Ribbon Schools. This week, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton called on us to make education the first priority of this Nation, as we enter the 21st century. I could not agree more. Fortunately, as I have traveled throughout Massachusetts in the last few years, and particularly last year, it has been very apparent to me that many communities have already taken on the President's challenge. In scores of neighborhoods throughout the Commonwealth, parents, schoolchildren, teachers, principals, and community volunteers are working with infectious enthusiasm to make their schools the best in the world. Each of the seven schools which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has nominated for the Blue Ribbon Schools Award this year has demonstrated that we can achieve high standards in education in this country, and that we can make good public schools a fundamental building block of strong, vibrant communities. The seven schools are located in communities all over Massachusetts, and represent Massachusetts in all its diversity: the Mason Elementary School in Boston; the Blanchard Memorial School in Boxborough; the Emerson Elementary School in Malden; the Tisbury School on Martha's Vineyard; the Johnson Elementary School in Natick; the Steward Elementary School in Topsfield; and the Jacob Hiatt Magnet School in Worcester. Each school has embraced high standards and welcomed innovation in teaching; but, more important, each has brought parents, teachers, schoolchildren and the community together to make school an exciting place where children can learn, want to learn, and do learn. The U.S. Blue Ribbon Schools Review Panel will make its decision on the winners of this year's Blue Ribbon Schools Award in a matter of weeks. Regardless of the decision, we in Massachusetts are proud of our nominees. They have established themselves as leaders, and I am confident that many other Massachusetts schools will follow in their path of excellence.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of Rodney Slater to be the next Secretary of Transportation. Mr. Slater has distinguished himself by his fine service to the people of Arkansas and to the Nation as Federal Highway Administrator. I have had the opportunity to meet with Mr. Slater and discuss a range of transportation issues with him. I am confident that he has the necessary skills and knowledge to develop a national transportation policy and to prepare our Nation for the transportation challenges of the next century. The greatest challenge before Mr. Slater is to establish a comprehensive transportation policy for the 21st century. When Mr. Slater came before the Commerce Committee, I spoke of the need to develop such a policy and I emphasized my belief that such a policy must prominently include passenger rail service as an integral component. Despite rail's proven safety, efficiency and reliability in Europe, Japan, and even here in the United States, our Nation continues to seriously underfund and shortchange passenger rail. Indeed, over half the Transportation Department's spending authority is devoted to highways and another quarter to aviation; rail is still in distant last place with roughly 3 percent of total spending authority. During the confirmation hearing, I stated that I believe the time is long overdue to change our approach and to afford greater consideration to our commitment to intermodalism. I hope to work with Mr. Slater in the years ahead to develop and deploy a comprehensive, financially stable, intercity transportation network that includes passenger rail as an integral component. A second and important challenge Mr. Slater will face will be the reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act or ISTEA. I am by no means alone in counting on the administration to play a central role in this debate. Soon, the administration will submit its proposal for reauthorizing ISTEA. I expect this proposal to fairly allocate highway funds and to consider the aging and crumbling infrastructure of the crowded cities in the Northeast. These cities are important population centers and significant gateways for international trade and tourism. Those of us representing northeastern States are placing great faith in Mr. Slater--faith that he will afford due consideration to our legitimate needs and will offer sufficient support to ensure that those needs are addressed in a fair and equitable manner. I look forward to working with Mr. Slater in several other areas including reforming the FAA, negotiating and implementing meaningful open-skies agreements with our trading partners, and implementing the train whistle ban in a manner that respects the safety records of the communities that will be affected. I enthusiastically will vote in favor of Mr. Slater's confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support Bill Daley to be the next Secretary of Commerce. In his appearance before the Senate Commerce Committee, Mr. Daley impressed me and other members with his energy, his enthusiasm, and his firm grasp of the challenges faced by American companies attempting to compete in the world marketplace. In my view, Mr. Daley demonstrated that he possesses the qualities, energy, and instincts necessary to be a successful Secretary, and to lead the Commerce Department into the 21st century. We all regret that, in recent years, the Department of Commerce has become the target of a great deal of criticism. Though some of this criticism may be warranted, in my view most of the criticism is not aimed at creating a better or more efficient Department but instead is an attempt to sacrifice valuable and important Federal activities for short-term ideological and partisan gain. Nevertheless, I applaud Mr. Daley for his forthright acknowledgment of the criticism and his commitment to address several of the concerns raised. His pledge to review the process by which persons are selected to accompany Department officials on trade missions abroad and his promise to reduce the number of political appointees at the Department are a strong testament of the sincerity of Mr. Daley's commitment. From conversations with leaders of the Massachusetts business community, and especially with those who run the small businesses that are the engines of economic growth in my State, there is broad support for the functions performed by the Commerce Department, and there is near unanimous agreement that the U.S. Government must aggressively assist U.S. companies attempting to develop and utilize new technologies, and enter new markets overseas. Small and emerging companies in Massachusetts have benefited greatly from several Commerce programs. The Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Service are both excellent examples of government making smart investments in emerging companies. The evidence for both of these programs demonstrates that each dollar invested generates many more in return. The same is true for the programs administered by the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee and the U.S. Foreign Commercial Service. The one-stop-shop trade center in Boston has helped hundreds of New England companies develop and expand markets overseas. Finally, the Economic Development Administration remains one of the few resources that cities can call on for capital planning or capital project assistance that will boost their economies and create jobs. For this reason, the EDA must be maintained and strengthened. A vital but not-as-well-known arm of the Commerce Department is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. I consider NOAA to be one of the Federal Government's premier scientific research and resource management agencies, with responsibility for the stewardship of our marine resources, management of our coastal zone, and operation of the National Weather Service, environmental satellite systems and a fleet of oceanographic research vessels. These oceanic and atmospheric programs are a critical component in the integrated effort to study and maintain the Earth's ecosystem. Other Commerce agencies, such as the National Institute of Standards, the Census Bureau, and the Patent and Trademark Office perform missions that are necessary to our economic and governmental functioning. In my view, the Commerce Department is in a unique position with responsibility for trade, technology, and environmental matters, and this presents Mr. Daley with a special opportunity: to successfully integrate U.S. policy on economic and environmental issues. After following his impressive career and after carefully listening to his recent testimony before the Senate Commerce Committee, I have every confidence that Mr. Daley understands and appreciates this unique mission. I support his confirmation, and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to make available to all my colleagues and their staff an article by Wernor Fornos, president of the Population Institute, which articulates the importance of a vote that Congress will cast in February. This vote will affect the lives of thousands of families worldwide. This vote will determine whether previously appropriated fiscal year 1997 funds for international family planning will be released only 5 months after the fiscal year for which they were provided has begun, or 9 months after it has begun. Releasing these funds in March as opposed to July is critical--international family planning programs have sustained massive cuts over the past year and a half. These reductions have been punitive and unprecedented. They are, quite literally, threatening the health of women and children. I ask my colleagues to consider this article when they cast their vote in February. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to stress my unambiguous support for President Clinton's nomination of Andrew Cuomo to serve as the next Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. In my opinion, Mr. Cuomo has the potential to be one of the strongest HUD Secretaries in the agency's 30 years of existence. Not only does Andrew Cuomo bring strong and relevant skills to this job, but Mr. Cuomo will inherit an agency that is moving in the right direction. HUD is in much better shape than the agency was in when Henry Cisneros arrived. HUD had suffered greatly during the 1980's from mismanagement and scandal. Secretary Cisneros applied his boundless energy and unique vision to a very difficult task. Those who oppose HUD's important mission tried to use the management difficulties at HUD as an excuse for eliminating the agency. The success of Secretary Cisneros' stewardship has deflated calls for HUD's elimination and has instead changed the national conversation about HUD and housing policy. In this new conversation on housing programs, we can talk about the transformation of public housing. You can easily witness this transformation at many sites across the country. In my state, you can see public housing changing at the Orchard Park redevelopment site in Boston and at the Jackson Parkway HOPE VI site in Holyoke, MA. These HOPE VI sites have become the lifeblood for thousands of people and whole communities. We can also talk about HUD's positive role as a partner with our States and cities: In Massachusetts, HUD is a partner with the State housing agency in a property disposition demonstration. In the neighborhoods of Roxbury and Allston-Brighton, HUD is a partner with the city and the nonprofit community development corporations using CDBG and HOME funds to revitalize distressed neighborhoods. And, we are able to change the way we talk about cities: Violent crimes in the Nation's 50 largest cities have declined by an average of 13 percent, unemployment has been cut by 3.1 percent in the past 4 years, and home ownership has expanded with nearly 700,000 central city residents having become homeowners since 1990. Andrew Cuomo has played an important role in these changes. He has helped to change this agency and its role in America's communities. And, because he has been a major player at HUD over the last 4 years, he will be able to capitalize on the progress that he and his predecessor have made. We can be confident that Andrew Cuomo will be successful over the next 4 years because he has been extremely successful over the last 4. Mr. Cuomo has directed the empowerment zone and enterprise community programs for the Federal Government, he has made major changes in the administration of HUD's homeless assistance programs, he has nurtured and supported the highly successful YouthBuild Program, and he has expanded and improved upon the role that HUD plays in assisting the economic development of distressed communities. He has already made a major mark. He is well prepared to take over the reins at HUD. In closing, Mr. President, let me reiterate my strong support for this nominee. Most importantly, he comes from one of the major urban centers in the country and from a tradition of paying attention to and assisting our communities. Over the course of the next few years, HUD could face some very tough choices and we need to understand what the consequences of those choices will be. Andrew Cuomo is wholly qualified to meet the challenges that he will face. As the ranking member of the subcommittee with primary responsibility for HUD and its programs, I pledge to do all that I can to aid Mr. Cuomo in succeeding as HUD Secretary. I look forward to working with him over the next 4 years to restore the agency, reinforce its mission, preserve affordable housing, and make significant progress in meeting the housing needs of our people and in revitalizing our distressed communities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Paul Tsongas, who lost his battle against cancer on Saturday. We have all lost a great friend; the Nation has lost an extraordinary American who defined the concept of public service and whose courage and conviction set an example for each and every one of us. Paul was the son of Greek immigrants in Lowell, MA. He worked in his father's drycleaning business, and served in the Peace Corps, as a Lowell city councilor, as a Middlesex county commissioner, as a U.S. Congressman, and as a U.S. Senator in the seat that I am now honored to occupy. Paul was able to achieve so much in his life because no matter where he went, no matter what office he held, he never left the people of Lowell. He instinctively understood not only their problems but also how government could help provide some of the solutions which were necessary to resolve them. In 1992, when George Bush looked unbeatable, Paul Tsongas ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination because he knew his ideas for our future were better. We must not forget the timeless principles for which Paul Tsongas fought throughout his career in elective office: balancing the Federal budget and establishing sound fiscal principles for the Federal Government, investing in our country and our children, and building our economy so future generations can attain the dreams which seem to elude us today. Although Paul did not win the nomination, he became the catalyst who turned the national spotlight on our fiscal policies and changed the political dialog in the United States forever. After the campaign, Paul Tsongas joined with Warren Rudman and Pete Peterson to found the Concord Coalition to promote fiscal responsibility. This organization again and again has drawn national attention to our Nation's fiscal agenda. Since the 1992 Presidential campaign, we have cut the Federal budget deficit by more than half. The question in Washington is no longer ``Can we balance the budget?'', but ``How soon can we do so?'' Much of the progress we have made can be attributed to Paul Tsongas and his economic call to arms. The rebuilt, reinvigorated city of Lowell, MA is another long-lasting memorial to Paul. He as much or more than any other person shepherded the revitalization program through the Congress, and by seeing and breathing life into a local pride and spirit that were still alive, he transformed a rundown mill town into an international destination with an amazing story to tell and show visitors from near and far. Paul Tsongas' accomplishments only explain part of what made him so extraordinary. There is no way to explain the impact on others of his decency, integrity, and courage. But that impact was real and pronounced. In 1983, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The next year he retired from the Senate in order to spend more time with his wife Niki, and his three daughters, Ashley, Katina, and Molly. He successfully battled cancer for over a decade with a sense of grace and a strength of character that are remarkable. It is terribly hard to acknowledge the death of such a person. Paul will be greatly and genuinely missed because he was greatly and genuinely loved. That is a compliment to which all of us can aspire when we leave this Earth. But Paul's life took him a step beyond even that status among his family and friends and all who know or observed him in his public service. We can say truthfully and appreciatively that we are better people because of the example Paul Tsongas set during his life. In that way, he not only improved the lives of many in very direct ways, he will continue to live on as an inspiration to us. We will miss him, but we are comforted by what he has given to us.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to strongly support the nomination of Madeleine Albright to be Secretary of State. I thank the majority leader for moving so rapidly to schedule both this debate as well as the vote. I believe the overwhelming vote--probably unanimous--in favor of Madeleine Albright is going to properly reflect the confidence and esteem in which she is held by the U.S. Senate. I think the President should be greatly commended for this nomination. Obviously, he has chosen not only someone who is eminently qualified to be Secretary of State, but he has made a wonderful statement to the world about the possibilities in the United States of America. It is something we often talk about, but Madeleine Albright will be a living example, an Ambassador, even as Secretary of State, of the opportunities in this country for an immigrant as well as for women. I think all of us should be very proud of that. She brings a remarkable amount of knowledge and practical experience to this job. She is an academic with recognized expertise in the politics and policies of Russia, Central and Eastern Europe. During her tenure as our representative at the United Nations, she has shown herself to be a remarkably forceful and effective diplomat. Of particular importance to us here, she understands the Hill, she understands the Congress, she understands the constitutional prerogatives thereof, and she has worked as well with the executive branch as she has with the legislative branch of our Government. During her 4 years at the United Nations, she established an impressive record of accomplishments on behalf of our country. Thanks to her determination, the United States was able to hold the line on U.N. sanctions against Libya and Iraq and to gain the Security Council's approval for the United States-led multinational effort to restore democracy in Haiti, an effort, I might comment, met with significant resistance in this country, that represented both a gutsy, courageous decision and one which has made an enormous difference, ultimately, for the people of Haiti and, I think, also, one might say, to our country because of what we accomplished and also because of the practical things that we avoided with respect to the forced immigration and difficulties we were facing with refugees coming to Florida. In addition to that, her very strong personal advocacy led to the establishment of the War Crimes Tribunal for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia and for the fulfillment, really, of Eleanor Roosevelt's proposal for the establishment of a new position, the High Commissioner for Human Rights. In the very difficult area of U.N. reform and management, which is an area Senator Gregg referred to, and other Senators have expressed a great deal of concern about, particularly those of us on the Foreign Relations Committee, Ambassador Albright's determined and personal efforts have led to the establishment of an inspector general, the adoption for the first time in history of a no-growth budget. As suspect as Senator Gregg says some of the promises may be, it is in place and I believe we are in a position to help leverage that now for the first time, and also, most important, the election of a new Secretary General who understands the paramount need for continued reform. Those of us who know Ambassador Albright were not at all surprised by her deft handling of the nomination process itself, the way in which she impressed both the public and the Senators who were part of that confirmation process earlier this month. As the former chairman and now ranking member of the International Operations Subcommittee, I was particularly pleased that Ambassador Albright shares my concern about two important issues. They are not the only things we share, but two that I want to just spend a moment on. One is the need to ensure that the State Department has adequate resources to conduct our diplomacy in this increasingly complex world. I think it is vital for us in the Congress not to balance the budget of the United States on the great international interests we have, to nickel and dime many of those vital interests as we go forward in this far more complex world. Many of my colleagues spend a lot of time extolling the virtues of the end of the cold war, and well we should. But the end of the cold war does not mean the end of the need for personal diplomacy or for vigilance or for American presence. I would respectfully submit that it means the need for more, not less. And the new kind of conflicts that we see, conflicts that emerge out of nationalism, out of fundamentalism, the problems of terrorism and working on treaties and various agreements, and legal agreements to exchange law enforcement and information, all of these things really demand more personal diplomacy than ever before. Indeed, the extraordinary confrontations we face internationally on issues of resource allocation, refugees, human rights require the United States of America, the preeminent leader on these issues in the world, to be able to make our presence felt. Mr. President, that means people talking to people. It does not mean closing every mission or closing every outpost in the world. It frankly means a greater presence, not a lesser presence. I believe that that will return to us in so many hundreds of thousands of ways, some of them immeasurable, but most of them measurable, that it is well worth the investment of this country. The second area, I believe, is the importance of developing a multilateral strategy to combat the increasing threats positioned by international crime. Without such a strategy, we will find ourselves increasingly threatened in the face of a growing global criminal network that tears at the fabric of our society and jeopardizes our relationships with other nations. In the coming months we have to address a host of important issues in the Senate: arms control and foreign policy issues, including the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Nuclear Safety Convention, the future of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the U.N. funding and reform, and the question of resources for international affairs, agencies and programs. So I look forward to working with the new Secretary of State on those issues. Mr. President, many of us have had the honor of working with Ambassador Albright for the last 4 years. We know she has a remarkable grasp of the issues that we face and a determination to confront the challenges. We should remember that she brings a very important additional quality to this job--it is a special quality, and I think particularly important in this time--and that is the ability to connect with the American people and to help define to the American people the complexities of our interests in foreign policy and to do so in a way that all Americans can understand and appreciate. When we visited in my office prior to her confirmation hearing, Ambassador Albright said to me that her first objective was to make the American people understand what we are trying to accomplish, how we are trying to accomplish it, and their stake in what we are trying to accomplish in their name. Like any smart politician, she understands that no foreign policy can be successful ultimately without the support of the American people. I am confident that she will engender that support in her new role as Secretary of State. So today we have an opportunity to help make history in the U.S. Senate by confirming a remarkably talented person who happens to also be a woman as the next Secretary of State. I am pleased to cast my vote along with others for Madeleine Albright. I know she will undertake her new job with great thoughtfulness and creativity and with a zest that will make us proud. I reserve the remainder of time for our side of the aisle.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about Paul Tsongas, who lost his battle against cancer on Saturday. I have lost a great friend; our Nation has lost an extraordinary American who defined the concept of public service and whose courage and conviction set an example for each and every one of us. A son of Greek immigrants in Lowell, MA, Paul Tsongas worked in his father's drycleaning business, and served in the Peace Corps, as a Lowell City Councilor, as a Middlesex County Commissioner, as a U.S. Congressman and as a U.S. Senator in the seat that I am now honored to occupy. Paul was able to achieve so much in his life because no matter where he went, no matter what office he held, he never left the people of Lowell. He instinctively understood not only their problems but also how government could help provide some of the solutions which were necessary to resolve them. In 1992, when George Bush looked unbeatable, Paul Tsongas ran for the Democratic Presidential nomination because he knew his ideas for our future were better. We must not forget the timeless principles for which Paul Tsongas fought throughout his career in elective office: balancing the Federal budget and establishing sound fiscal principles for the Federal Government, investing in our country and our children, and building our economy so future generations can attain the dreams which seem to elude us today. Although Paul did not win the nomination, he became the catalyst who turned the national spotlight on our fiscal policies and changed the political dialog in the United States forever. After the campaign, Paul Tsongas joined with Warren Rudman and Pete Peterson to found the Concord Coalition to promote fiscal responsibility. This organization again and again has drawn national attention to our Nation's fiscal agenda. Since the 1992 Presidential campaign, we have cut the Federal budget deficit by more than half. The question in Washington is no longer ``Can we balance the budget?'', but ``How soon can we do so?'' Much of the progress we have made can be attributed to Paul Tsongas and his economic call to arms. The rebuilt, reinvigorated city of Lowell, MA is another long-lasting memorial to Paul. He as much or more than any other person shepherded the revitalization program through the Congress, and by seeing and breathing life into a local pride and spirit that were still alive, he transformed a rundown mill town into an international destination with an amazing story to tell and show visitors from near and far. Paul Tsongas' accomplishments only explain part of what made him so extraordinary. There is no way to explain the impact on others of his decency, integrity and courage. But that impact was real and pronounced. In 1983, he was diagnosed with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. The next year he retired from the Senate in order to spend more time with his wife Niki, and his three daughters, Ashley, Katina and Molly. He successfully battled cancer for over a decade with a sense of grace and a strength of character that are remarkable. It is terribly hard to acknowledge the death of such a person. Paul will be greatly and genuinely missed because he was greatly and genuinely loved. That is a compliment to which all of us can aspire when we leave this Earth. But Paul's life took him a step beyond even that status among his family and friends and all who know or observed him in his public service. We can say truthfully and appreciatively that we are better people because of the example Paul Tsongas set during his life. In that way, he not only improved the lives of many in very direct ways, he will continue to live on as an inspiration to us. We will miss him, but we are comforted by what he has given to us.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in an effort to increase overall safety of the airline industry, I am introducing the ``Aviation Safety Protection Act of 1997,'' which would establish whistle blower protection for aviation workers. The worker protections contained in the Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA] are very important to American workers. OSHA properly protects both private and Federal Government employees who report health and safety violations from reprisal by their employers. However, because of a loophole, aviation employees are not covered by these protections. Flight attendants and other airline employees are in the best position to recognize breaches in safety regulations and can be the critical link in ensuring safer air travel. Currently, those employees who work for unscrupulous airlines face the possibility of harassment, negative disciplinary action, and even termination if they report work violations. Aviation employees perform an important public service when they choose to report safety concerns. No employee should be put in the position of having to choose between his or her job and reporting violations that threaten the safety of passengers and crew. For that reason, we need a strong whistle blower law to protect aviation employees from retaliation by their employers when reporting incidents to Federal authorities. Americans who travel on commercial airlines deserve the safeguards that exist when flight attendants and other airline employees can step forward to help Federal authorities enforce safety laws. This bill would close the loophole in OSHA law and provide the necessary protections for aviation employees who provide safety violation information to Federal authorities or testify about or assist in disclosure of safety violations. The act provides a Department of Labor complaint procedure for employees who experience employer reprisal for reporting such violations, and assures that there are strong enforcement and judicial review provisions for fair implementation of the protections. The act also protects airlines from frivolous complaints by establishing a fine which will be imposed on an employee who files a complaint if the Department of Labor determines that there is no merit to the complaint. I want to acknowledge the leadership of Representative James Clyburn who will introduce the bill in the House of Representatives. I am pleased to introduce the companion legislation in the Senate. This bill will provide important protections to aviation workers and the general public. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting it. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to help ensure that children across this country get the economic support they need and deserve from both parents in order to have a wholesome childhood, grow up healthy, and thrive. Mr. President, child support reform is an urgent public issue because it affects so many children. In 1994, one out of every four children lived in a family with only one parent present in the home. Half of all the 18.7 million children living in single-parent families in 1994 were poor, compared with only slightly more than one out of every ten children in two-parent families. Clearly the payment of child support by the absent parent is an important determinant of the economic status of these children. Unfortunately, the failure to pay child support is extraordinarily widespread, cutting across income and racial lines. Of the 10 million women raising children with an absent parent, over 4 million had no support awarded. Of those 5.4 million women who were due support, slightly over half received the full amount due, while a quarter received partial payment and a quarter received nothing at all. Let me repeat that, Mr. President--more than half of the women with child support orders received no support or less than the full amount. Mr. President, common sense will tell you that children are hurt when parents do not pay support. But perhaps some evidence will make the point even clearer. A recent survey of single parents in Georgia, Oregon, Ohio, and New York documents the real harm children suffer when child support is not paid: during the first year after the parent left the home, more than half the families surveyed faced a serious housing crisis. Nearly a third reported that their children went hungry at some point during the year. And over a third reported that their children lacked appropriate clothing such as a winter coat. Mr. President, it is also evident that better child support enforcement can produce a lot more money for children. A 1994 study by the Urban Institute estimates that if child support orders were established for all children with a living non-custodial father and these orders were fully enforced, aggregate child support payments would have been $47.6 billion dollars in 1990--nearly three times the amount of child support actually paid in this country. Unfortunately, this country has made all too little progress in tackling the child support problem, and this has been true under both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Over the past decade, the average child support payment due to all women with a child support award, the average amount received by those women, as well as the percentage of women with awards have remained virtually unchanged (adjusting for inflation). Similarly, the state child support enforcement system that serves welfare families and non-welfare families who ask for help has made progress in paternity establishment, but little progress overall. Over half a million children had their paternity established by state agencies in FY 1994--a fifty percent increase from five years earlier. But fewer than one out of every five cases served by state agencies had any child support paid in FY 1994--a figure that has risen only slightly since FY 1990. Mr. President, it is an intolerable situation for our nation's children when state child support agencies are making absolutely no collection in 80 percent of their cases. My bill will help make sure that we achieve real progress for children. Last year, Congress passed some important improvements in the child support system in the welfare reform bill that became law. My bill would give states a chance to implement these new changes and then assess their success or failure. If these reforms succeed in dramatically improving the performance of state child support offices, then this bill would not tinker with success. If, however, we do not see dramatic improvement in collections within the next three years, this bill would ensure that we take bold steps to help children. This bill would leave establishment of paternity and child support orders at the state level but move collection of support to the national level where we can more aggressively pursue interstate cases and send a message to all parents obligated to pay support that making full and timely support payments is an obligation as serious as making full and timely payment of taxes. If more than half the states do not achieve a 75 percent collection rate in their child support cases, then the system of collection would be federalized to ensure that children get the support they need and deserve. Mr. President, it has been 13 years since this Congress passed the first major child support legislation. Despite this legislative effort and additional reforms in 1988, according to a recent study there is a higher default rate on child support payments than on used car loans. I believe that every single member of this body will agree with me that this is wrong. If, under the newly revised federal law, states can rectify this situation, we can all take pleasure and satisfaction from watching them do it. If they cannot, we must take action. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that America's children of every income level will be assured of the support they need and deserve. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the ``Working Families' Child Care Assistance Act'' to help the many working families who face great struggles to find affordable, good-quality child care. Mr. President, we no longer live in an era when one parent generally stays at home full time to take care of the children. Today, 60 percent of women with children younger than six are in the labor force. The result is that approximately seven million children of working parents are cared for each month by someone other than a parent. And most of these children spend 30 hours or more each week in child care, according to the National Research Council. New research also confirms that our current social reality has placed enormous strains on working families' budgets because many families must pay for child care. According to a new study of 100 child care centers entitled ``Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers,'' families spend an average of $4,940 per year to provide services for each enrolled child. Annual child care costs of this size represent a whopping 28 percent of $17,481, which is the yearly income of an average family in the bottom two-fifths of the income scale. But even for families who can afford the cost of child care, in some communities child care continues to be hard to obtain at any cost. In 1994, 36 States reported State child care assistance waiting lists, according to the Children's Defense Fund. Eight States had at least 10,000 children waiting for assistance. Georgia's list was the longest with 41,000, while in Texas the list had 36,000 names and a wait of about 2 years. In Massachusetts, the statewide waiting list contains the names of 4,000 working families. Additionally, a 1995 U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) study found that shortages of child care for infants, sick children, children with special needs, and school-age children before and after school pose difficulties for many families. I believe the child care situation may worsen because of a provision to which I was opposed in last year's welfare reform bill which cuts the Title XX Social Services Block Grant by 15 percent. Many States use Title XX funding to pay for child care for working families; unfortunately, this cut will result in even more families needing child care assistance. Mr. President, it is time to provide help to working families to afford quality child care. My bill would double the funding through the Child Care Development Block Grant, increasing child care funding by $1 billion per year. In my home State of Massachusetts, this would result in more than 5,000 families receiving child care help which otherwise would not receive it. Working parents face an extraordinary uphill battle in trying to make ends meet and cover the high cost of child care. Well over half the women in the work force are parents of preschool children, and they need access to affordable, quality child care they can trust. This bill provides real help to working families and hopefully will send a strong signal that their work and their efforts to provide reliable child care for their children are valued and supported. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1997. This bill would protect workers from on- the-job discrimination. It represents a milestone in the protection of religious liberty, assuring that all workers have equal employment opportunities. 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 religious 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 towards 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. I believe this bill should receive bipartisan support. The same bill was endorsed in the last session by a wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs, the Christian Legal Society, and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston. I urge this body to pass this legislation so that all American workers can both be assured of equal employment opportunities and the ability to practice their religion. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to commend the Democratic leader for the package of initiatives he has developed on behalf of Senate Democrats. Most of these proposals came out of the 1996 Families First agenda. I was proud to be involved in that attempt to meet the real needs of everyday Americans and I am proud to be a cosponsor of these bills today. The Education for the 21st Century Act, S. 12, continues Democrats' historic commitment to education. Federal support for education is one of the best investments our Nation can make to ensure a prosperous future. The bill would provide tuition assistance, restore the student loan interest deduction, subsidize State and local bond issues used to finance school construction and repair, fund the Parents as Teachers Program to assist parents who want to help their children become successful readers, and create a technology literacy challenge fund to catalyze and leverage State, local, and private efforts to increase technology literacy among our Nation's schoolchildren. The Children's Health Coverage Act, S. 13, would help working families purchase private health insurance for their children. Although Senator Kennedy and I have a bill which uses a subsidy approach rather than a tax credit approach, our bills are fundamentally similar. Both would provide assistance to children 18 and under and pregnant women to purchase private health insurance, both would provide a comprehensive benefits package, and both would provide assistance on a sliding scale to the working parents of uninsured children. I look forward to working with Senator Daschle, my fellow Democrats, and my Republican colleagues to pass a bill this year to provide children the health insurance they need and working parents the peace of mind they deserve. The Retirement Security Act, S. 14, includes a wide range of proposals designed to help Americans prepare for a secure retirement. These would address the fact that too many Americans lack pension coverage by covering more workers under existing plans, creating new retirement savings options for millions of Americans, and encouraging more businesses to establish plans and more employees to participate in them. The bill would improve pension access and coverage, strengthen pension security, promote pension portability, and increase equity for women. The Youth Violence, Crime and Drug Abuse Control Act, S. 15, would build on the success of the 1994 Crime Act and other crime fighting initiatives enacted during President Clinton's first term. I am proud to have been a leader in securing funding in the 1994 Crime Act for placing 100,000 new cops on the streets of America's communities. Thanks to the presence of the newly funded police officers, a fully funded Violence Against Women Act, and the Brady law--which has prevented more than 60,000 felons, fugitives, and stalkers from purchasing handguns, violent crime is lower than at any time since 1990. This bill balances the need to target and punish violent, young criminals with proven drug prevention programs. We would put 25,000 more police officers on the streets by extending the COPS Program for 2 years, and we would extend the Violence Against Women Act to provide shelter for 400,000 more battered women and their children, increase Federal penalties for juveniles by raising the mandatory release age from 21 to 26, increase penalties for gang violence, and reauthorize the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. Senator Daschle deserves our thanks for his leadership in spotlighting these issues of education, children's health care, retirement security, and youth violence that are so critical to the future of our Nation and to the well-being of the American people. He and his staff are to be commended for drafting these bills to address the issues. I look forward to working with Senator Daschle and other Senators on both sides of the aisle to pass legislation to meet these compelling needs. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to call the attention of my colleagues to Chester Herwitz, a resident of Worcester, MA, who on January 11 will be the sole American to receive the Indo-American Society Annual Award. The prominence of the two other recipients-- Mother Teresa and Dr. Manmohan Singh, the former Finance Minister of India--attests to the prestige of this award. Born in Swampscott, MA, Chester moved west within my State, eventually settling in Worcester. I have known Chester Herwitz for almost 30 years. He brings enormous passion, intelligence, energy, and integrity to his chosen field, contemporary Indian art. For more than 20 years, he has lent works from his collection to dozens of museums in England, France, and the United States, including two in Massachusetts, the Worcester Art Museum and the Peabody Essex Museum in Salem. I also applaud the good works of Chester and his wife Davida. In 1994, they established the Chester and Davida Herwitz Charitable Trust to support contemporary Indian art. In addition, Chester has served on the board of several charitable and social-service organizations in Massachusetts. I am particularly proud that a great nation like India will recognize Chester's work. I trust that Chester will continue to enrich the cultures of both India and the United States.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to offer congratulations to Thorton Stearns, a graduate of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and longtime resident of Winchester, MA, who is the first recipient of the Eugene Joseph McCarthy Philanthropist of the Year Award, presented by Winchester Hospital. For more than 15 years, Mr. Stearns has generously supported the hospital's philanthropic efforts. He has embodied the spirit of philanthropy of Mr. Eugene McCarthy. Mr. McCarthy was a quiet, private, but generous man who upon his passing left Winchester Hospital and numerous other charities a $1 million bequest. Thorton Stearns, known affectionately to the staff of Winchester Hospital as ``Thorny,'' has served the hospital as a corporator. He has acknowledged that his philanthropy has a component of self-interest, having said, ``I have used the hospital and I might need its services again; therefore, it is important that I support the hospital financially.'' Now chairman of the Vacuum Barrier Corp., which he founded in 1958, Thorton Stearns continues to be an active member of the Winchester community. I am pleased to recognize his efforts on behalf of Winchester Hospital and wish to congratulate him on being chosen as the first recipient of its Philanthropist of the Year Award.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, although I do not serve on the Finance Committee, I was pleased to work closely with that committee during this Congress on a number of issues which have a special impact on the people of Massachusetts. For example, in the Small Business Job Protection Act, we were able to provide tax relief for fishing families in New Bedford, MA, as well as extend the research and development tax credit and employer-provided education tax deduction. In addition, in that legislation, we raised the minimum wage by 90 cents an hour--the first installment of that raise just went into effect this week, and the benefit is being felt by families all across Massachusetts. Mr. President, while we can take pride in this work, there were several miscellaneous tax provisions that the committee, without making any judgment about their merit, found unable to give proper review or consideration. One of these technical amendments would clarify the tax treatment of the State-mandated consolidation of savings banks life insurance departments. Specifically, the amendment would address the potential unfair consequences for the savings bank life insurance [SBLI] industry which is unique to New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts. While the Finance Committee did not act on this issue in the current Congress, it is my hope and expectation that the Senate will be able to make the necessary technical clarifications in the law early next year. I should point out that all six Senators from affected States wrote to the chairman of the Finance Committee, the Senator from Delaware, requesting committee consideration of the measure. That letter, which I ask to be printed in the Record immediately following my remarks, was signed by Senators Kennedy, Moynihan, D'Amato, Dodd, Lieberman and me. Mr. President, in addition to the clear, bipartisan support for this technical amendment, the Treasury Department has indicated the Clinton administration has no objection to this proposal. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this issue in the 105th Congress. I yield the floor. The letter follows: U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, December 12, 1995. Hon. William V. Roth, Jr., Chairman, Senate Finance Committee, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: During upcoming negotiations on the Balanced Budget Act of 1995, we would ask that you support a technical amendment to address potential unfair tax consequences for the savings bank life insurance (SBLI) organizations in New York, Connecticut and Massachussets. SBLI is an industry unique to our three States. The provision would clarify the tax treatment of the state-mandated consolidation of mutual savings bank's life insurance departments. More specifically, the provision would clarify how the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 should treat certain additional policyholders dividends mandated by the Massachusetts State Legislature in 1990. As explained further in the attached paper, the legislation consolidated the state's savings banks' life insurance departments into a new non-public stock company, while still providing for the sale of its products through these state banking institutions. Because of the IRS' expansive interpretation of current law, it is essential that Congress clarify that the 12-year dividend payout associated with this consolidation should be treated as a deductible policyholder dividend rather than a nondeductible redemption of equiy. The IRS has indicated that if the tax clarification of this issue is not made this year, SBLI and its policyholders will be subjected to this tax inequity which will be regrettably and unfairly passed on to the consumer. Only the Savings Bank Life Insurance Company of Massachusetts is immediately affected by the IRS' interpretation of the Code. However, the sister industries in both New York and Connecticut may be adversely affected if the Tax Code is not properly clarified because they may follow the consolidation approach taken by Massachusetts. Revenue estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation project that the cost of this clarification to the Tax Code would not exceed $25 million over the next five years, and the Administration has testified that it does not oppose providing legislative relief to SBLI. Mr. Chairman, for the aforementioned reasons, we would appreciate your cooperation in clarifying the Tax Code as it relates to this timely issue. Sincerely, Alfonse M. D'Amato, U.S. Senator. Edward M. Kennedy, Christopher J. Dodd, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, U.S. Senator. John F. Kerry, Joseph I. Lieberman.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation today to help ensure that children across this country get the economic support they need and deserve from both parents in order to have a wholesome childhood, grow up healthy, and thrive. Mr. President, child support reform is an urgent public issue because it affects so many children. In 1994, one out of every four children lived in a family with only one parent present in the home. Half of all the 18.7 million children living in single-parent families in 1994 were poor, compared with only slightly more than one out of every 10 children in two-parent families. Clearly the payment of child support by the absent parent is an important determinant of the economic status of these children. Unfortunately, the failure to pay child support is extraordinarily widespread, cutting across income and racial lines. Of the 10 million women raising children with an absent parent, over 4 million had no support awarded. Of those 5.4 million women who were due support, slightly over half received the full amount due, while a quarter received partial payment, and a quarter received nothing at all. Let me repeat that, Mr. President--more than half of the women with child support orders received no support or less than the full amount. Mr. President, common sense will tell you that children are hurt when parents do not pay support. But perhaps some evidence will make the point even clearer. A recent survey of single parents in Georgia, Oregon, Ohio, and New York documents the real harm children suffer when child support is not paid: During the first year after the parent left the home, more than half the families surveyed faced a serious housing crisis. Nearly a third reported that their children went hungry at some point during the year. And over a third reported that their children lacked appropriate clothing such as a winter coat. Mr. President, it is also clear that better child support enforcement can produce a lot more money for children. A 1994 study by the Urban Institute estimates that if child support orders were established for all children with a living noncustodial father and these orders were fully enforced, aggregate child support payments would have been $47.6 billion dollars in 1990--nearly three times the amount of child support actually paid in this country. Unfortunately, this country has made all too little progress in tackling the child support problem, and this has been true under both Democratic and Republican administrations. For all women over the past decade, the average child support payment due, the average amount received, as well as the percentage of women with awards, have remained virtually unchanged--adjusting for inflation. Similarly, the State child support enforcement system that serves welfare families and nonwelfare families who ask for help has made progress in paternity establishment, but little progress overall. Over 500,000 children had their paternity established by State agencies in fiscal year 1994--a 50 percent increase over the last 5 years. But fewer than one out of every five cases served by State agencies had any child support paid in fiscal year 1994--a figure that has risen only slightly since fiscal year 1990. Mr. President, it is an intolerable situation for our Nation's children when State child support agencies are making absolutely no collection in 80 percent of their cases. My bill will help make sure that we achieve real progress for children. During this session, Congress passed some important improvements in the child support system in the welfare bill that recently became law. My bill would give States a chance to implement these new changes and then assess their success or failure. If these reforms succeed in dramatically improving the performance of State child support offices, then this bill would not tinker with success. If, however, we do not see dramatic improvement in collections within the next 3 years, this bill would ensure that we take bold steps to help children. This bill would leave establishment of paternity and child support orders at the State level but move collection of support to the national level where we can more aggressively pursue interstate cases and send a message to all parents obligated to pay support that making full and timely support payments is an obligation as serious as making full and timely payment of taxes. If more than half the States do not achieve a 75-percent collection rate in their child support cases, then the system of collection would be federalized to ensure that children get the support they need and deserve. Mr. President, it has been 12 years since this Congress passed the first major child support legislation. However, despite this legislative effort and additional reforms in 1988, according to a recent study there is a higher default rate on child support payments than on used car loans. I do not believe a single Member of this body will argue with me that this is wrong. If, under the newly revised Federal law, States can rectify this situation, we can all take pleasure and satisfaction from watching them do it. If they cannot, we must no longer stand idly by wringing our hands. I urge my colleagues to support this bill so that America's children of every income level will be assured of the support they need and deserve. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, at this time, I would like to take a moment to recognize, encourage, and pay tribute to a comprehensive, new health initiative called ``The Men of Color Health Initiative'' which was started at the Harvard Street Neighborhood Health Center in my State of Massachusetts in 1993. This outstanding health service has combined years of careful and thoughtful research with a grassroots outreach program that brings to light important health care issues such as access to health care for people of African, Asian and Latino descent throughout Massachusetts and the United States. The Men of Color Health Initiative was inspired by the need to address, in a comprehensive and culturally appropriate manner, the many health and social issues facing men of color today. In 1993, representatives of this program embarked upon a statewide study to examine why ethnic minority men did not routinely have access to the health system. This project was designed to educate and activate men of African, Asian and Latino descent with regard to healthy lifestyles and appropriate medical care. The key to this process was the need to understand the health care needs, experiences, issues and perceptions of these highly exposed and often neglected groups. This focused health care initiative takes a large step forward in attempting to help men of color become more aware of the health care options they have today. Many of the men interviewed before the inception of this program indicated that hospital emergency rooms were insensitive, inefficient, nonresponsive, and biased against ethnic minority men. There was an underlying distrust in and cynicism about the health system today. Many stated that language barriers keep them away from the options that they do have. This program has gone the extra mile to see that the necessary surveys are conducted and discussion groups are available for male health system users and community-based providers to elicit information about viable methods to reach the population at risk. I applaud the efforts of this superb program and I wish it much success in the future. This thoughtful and successful program should be a model for others across the United States.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have spoken on the Senate floor in a personal tribute to Senator Claiborne Pell of my neighboring State of Rhode Island, and I wish him well in his retirement, but this year we in the U.S. Senate are losing 12 other colleagues, all of whom have left a unique mark on this institution and have served their states and the American people with dignity and integrity. All have been committed to the concerns of their constituents and have fought for issues that have moved this Nation forward and kept us strong, safe, and powerful. We shall miss each of them, and we shall miss their friendship, camaraderie, and counsel. Senator James Exon I want to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Jim Exon. The institution of the U.S. Senate is the hallmark of American democracy. Few Members with whom I have served have more skillfully represented national concerns and constituent interests during the long and arduous deliberations and debates in committee and on the floor of the U.S. Senate than Jim Exon. As Senator Exon leaves this body, he leaves a long and distinguished public service record, a legacy of independence, dependability, and a tough, common sense approach to policy as well as politics which will not be forgotten. As ranking minority member of the Budget Committee during the challenging early days of the 104th Congress, Senator Exon, knowing full well the shortcomings of the Republican budget, withstood the early onslaught of positive publicity for the new majority, and tirelessly devoted his efforts to leading the charge in committee not only to point out, line by line, what was wrong, but to convince the American people that he was right. Senator Exon has been an anchor of reasoned debate and bi- partisanship on defense, transportation, and business issues as well as on budget issues; and with his characteristic firmness, perseverance, and drive, he has always reflected the best of the pioneer tradition of his beloved Nebraska. With his retirement, we will have lost a skilled and committed colleague who cares about public service and whose career is a symbol of institutional pride and personal responsibility to the common good. Senator Mark Hatfield I want to pay tribute to the senior Senator from Oregon, Mark Hatfield, who has been a beacon of bi-partisanship in this Chamber. Senator Hatfield has always been, above all, a statesman dedicated to the Senate tradition of reasoned debate and responsible bipartisan solutions. In seeking common ground, whether on the budget or on issues of arms control and peace or on issues affecting the day to day lives of his constituents and families across America, Senator Hatfield has never been afraid to exercise his legendary independence, even if it meant risking the wrath of his party. Another word that aptly describes the long and distinguished public service career of Senator Hatfield, is ``independence.'' In every one of his votes he has shown extraordinary integrity, and I have been especially inspired by his work on arms control and his commitment to common sense in national and international affairs. At a time in this institution when we hear partisan politics in a shrill crescendo, we shall miss his quiet, steady voice of reason and his humanity, for he has been, in many ways, the conscience of the Senate. Mark Hatfield has left a mark on this place. I am hopeful we all will remember the standard he has set. Senator Bill Bradley I want to pay tribute to Senator Bill Bradley of New Jersey whose intellect and passion for ideas tempered by a common sense perspective have made him a calm voice for bipartisanship and logic. Senator Bradley has never been bound by the way things have always been done. He has always found a way to break new ground, find a better way, reach higher, and strive harder to help redefine and restructure our response to children in the inner city, to race relations in America, to tax reform and campaign finance reform. He led the 1986 tax reform bill and led the effort to delink human rights in China from the need to extend most-favored-nation status. I worked with him in that effort and recognized the keen, sharp historical perspective that he brings to human rights, international economics, and international relations. We have shared a commitment to Campaign Finance Reform and, again, his extraordinary ability to find a new way, try a different idea, and devise a better solution to our common problems has been inspiring as has been his commitment. We have learned to respect his judgment and analysis. Mr. President, the quality of leadership and service embodied in the life and career of Senator Bradley serves as a model for every young American, and he shall be missed in the 105th Congress. Senator Hank Brown I want to pay tribute to the distinguished Senior Senator from Colorado, Hank Brown with whom it has been a pleasure to serve. When I was chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and he was the ranking member, we developed an extraordinary working relationship and I welcomed his friendship and his counsel. Senator Brown is thoughtful and deeply committed to the truth. He is fearless in his willingness to buck the system and ignore political pressures to do what he believes is right. His commitment and counsel in finding the truth in the BCCI investigation led to legislation that tightened the banking laws and addressed narcotics trafficking. Mr. President, in my work with Senator Hank Brown, I do not recall a time when he lost his sense of humor or the twinkle in his eye. His calm forceful commitment to his county, to his constituents, and to this institution will be missed. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to serve with him. Senator Sam Nunn I want to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Georgia, Senator Sam Nunn. I do not believe there is any Member of the Senate who is more studious and astute. Any American who believes that a strong national defense is a necessity in this changing world, will look to the career of Senator Nunn with respect and admiration. His specific knowledge and keen analysis of defense issues, international relations, and armed services is without equal. When it comes to NATO, his undertaking of the complex historical relationships and potential policy alternatives that have developed during the evolution of our involvement in NATO have made him a world leader and the voice of reasoned debate. Senator Nunn has led the fight for more efficient uses of defense resources and greater accountability of defense contractors. He has been an invaluable ally in this institution to every American in uniform. He has been a calm, reasonable leader in the defense debate of the post-cold-war era. Senator Nunn is as thoughtful as he is astute, as committed as he is wise, and as influential as he is fair. We will miss the kind of leadership that Senator Nunn has brought to this institution. We can be sure that debates on the floor of the Senate in the 105th Congress and thereafter will echo his leadership, his resolve, and his commitment. His influence in defense policy--his legacy--will be felt for years to come. I join my colleagues in wishing him well. Senator Bill Cohen I want to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Maine, Senator Bill Cohen, a fellow New Englander, and our most renowned author, who has been respected on both sides of the aisle for his intellect and his down-east devotion to his beloved Maine. Senator Cohen's intelligence and his substantive approach to the issues are surpassed only by his extraordinary range of talents. Senator Cohen is known in this chamber for his devotion to detail and reasoned analysis of the issues, and recently he has expressed his concerns about partisanship and the political atmosphere which has dominated debate on the Senate floor. But his concern has never led to criticism of the process, people, or promise of this institution or of the purpose and function of government. He has always been a positive influence and has sought to make government in general and the Senate in particular responsive, efficient, and accountable. Negativism has not been a part of Senator Cohen's vocabulary. He is going home to New England, and we know how much he loves his State of Maine, the beauty and the majesty of the rocky coast that reaches out into the Atlantic. As a fellow New Englander, I understand his love for it. His roots are as deep as his commitment to his beliefs and principles, and whatever he chooses to do, we wish him well. Senator Howell Heflin I want to pay tribute to the Senior Senator from Alabama, Senator Howell Heflin--Judge Heflin, or just Judge, as he is known to his colleagues--whose long public service career has shaped the judicial system in this Nation. His temperance, knowledge, experience, and constitutional scholarship have helped preserve the integrity of the word ``justice'' in our democracy and taught us the lesson of judicial temperament and legislative leadership. If there is one word that describes Senator Heflin it is deliberative. He weighs the issues, individually without concern for party or political expedience. He evaluates, analyzes, reevaluates and makes a decision based on the facts and only the facts. Senator Heflin has represented the people of Alabama with grace, charm, intelligence, and integrity. His service and his character represent the best of the U.S. Senate and his leadership and perspective shall be sorely missed when the Judiciary Committee convenes in the 105th Congress. Senator Nancy Kassebaum I want to pay tribute to the Senator from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum, one of this institution's most respected authorities and most effective leaders on Labor and Human Resources issues. She is an extraordinary person whose quiet commitment and personal integrity have marked a public service career that has lived up to her family name and to the expectations of the people of her beloved Kansas. Her bipartisan leadership culminated this year in passage of the Kennedy-Kassebaum health insurance bill that protects health benefits for million of working Americans and relieves them of the fear of losing their health insurance if they lose their jobs or have a preexisting condition. She was instrumental in giving America this landmark health reform legislation when many said it could not be done this year. I have also known Senator Kassebaum to be deeply committed to foreign affairs and especially to concerns of African nations. Her name has become synonymous with education, public health, labor, and employment policies, but her devotion is to her family and to Kansas. The Senate will miss her, but the people of Kansas will have her home. Senator Bennett Johnston I want to pay tribute to Senator Bennett Johnston of Louisiana who has served for 24 years on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. He has been either the chairman or the ranking member of that committee for 16 of those 24 years and every year he has left his mark on this Nation's policies on the preservation and development of natural resources. His legislative skills and his knowledge of energy and natural resource issues are extraordinary and have led to the development of policies and programs that have had a deep and lasting impact on our Nation. He has served the people of Louisiana faithfully, fairly, and with diligence, and his legislative skills, leadership, and knowledge will be missed in the 105th Congress. Senator Alan Simpson I want to pay tribute to my friend and colleague from Wyoming, Senator Alan Simpson, who has always brought his unique perspective to bear on the critical issues of our time. His carefully reasoned and focused approach often has helped this Chamber see the essential center of issues with which he has been associated during his years on the Judiciary and Finance Committees. I have worked with Senator Simpson on camping finance reform and the candor, humor, and skill with which he approached the issue was refreshing, insightful, and direct. He is the kind of Senator whom the American people seek and re-elect because he reflects their interests and their ability to weed through the details to find the essential truth. Senator Simpson has served the interests of the people of Wyoming and of the West with profound skill and style and his personal commitment to immigration policy will mark a long and distinguished public service career. The Senate has been a better place because of the leadership of Senator Alan Simpson. Senator Paul Simon I want to pay tribute to my colleague from Illinois, Senator Paul Simon. We shall long remember the Senator who wore a bow tie every day. He brought to this Chamber a dignity and scholarship that has lifted the level of debate and preserved the grand traditions of this institution. Senator Simon has been a national leader on literacy and on the power of the written word. His career and his life are a tribute to knowledge, learning, and the pursuit of excellence. Senator Simon has walked these corridors with a quiet dignity and brought to them a sense of decency that we shall long remember. Senator Simon is truly a skilled teacher. He has taught us, in the U.S. Senate, the lesson of civility and he has taught us and every American who has heard his message that it is in the best interest of this Nation to put a premium on intellect again. He has done so in his actions, words, and deeds, and he shall be missed not only for his bow ties but for his honorable public service, his powerful independence, and his skill as a leader, a debater, and a quintessential U.S. Senator. Senator David Pryor I want to pay tribute to my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator David Pryor who is a skilled and effective legislator with a gentlemanly southern charm and a modesty that belies his extraordinary skills and accomplishments. Of his many accomplishments, not the least of which is his agricultural record for the people of Arkansas, Senator Pryor became an outspoken critic of the prices that pharmaceutical companies charge for prescription drugs and his leadership on the issue brought national attention to the problem and gave hope to millions of elderly Americans who could not afford their medication. Senator Pryor's record of leadership in public service is marked by compassion and civility. I wish him all the best as he leaves the Senate and takes on new challenges.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we approach the end of this Congress, I wanted to take a moment to say a few words about one colleague in particular, and I will add to these comments later and say a few words about a number of our other retiring colleagues. I will lead off my tribute to those who retire saying a few words about one of the U.S. Senate's finest members, and that is the senior Senator from Rhode Island, Mr. Pell. I have had the honor of serving with Senator Pell on the Foreign Relations Committee more than 12 years that I have been here, and I have been impressed by his extraordinary breadth of knowledge about international affairs, but more than that by the special demeanor of this colleague of ours. He is a man who is deeply committed to the development of a bipartisan foreign policy, one which promotes not only America's needs and interests but also Democratic values and humanitarian traditions. He has been both chairman and ranking minority member, and Senator Pell has always been courteous, solicitous of views of other members, determined to work toward a policy that we all could support even when the differences were extremely deep. He never abandoned his gentlemanly manner and often he succeeded in following the dictum that he used to give his staff throughout the years, which was, ``The best way is to let the other fellow have your way.'' Senator Pell's accomplishments in the areas of foreign policy are many and far-reaching. I will highlight just a couple of them. He was present at the creation of the United Nations, having served on the International Secretariat at the San Francisco conference which drew up the U.N. Charter. His commitment to the United Nations was really symbolized by the fact that he always carried the U.N. Charter in his pocket, though he really did not need to because he could tell anybody what it said. Senator Pell's belief in the United Nations reflects his long-held belief, part of which came from his exposure in the Foreign Service, both through his father as well as his own service in the Foreign Service, that problems ought to be resolved through diplomacy and negotiation rather than through the barrel of a gun. When I came before the Foreign Relations Committee 25 years ago this year to testify against our involvement in Vietnam, he gave me much welcomed support at that time and even then invited me to join him in the Senate. It was my first invitation and probably the best I ever received. I will always appreciate the fact that he was on the dais that day and that he understood and shared our views about the war. In view of Senator Pell's steadfast opposition to armed conflict as a means of achieving our national interests, it is not surprising that he has always been one the Senate's foremost arms control advocates. He has been instrumental in negotiating several arms control agreements, including the Environmental Modification Treaty and the Seabed Arms Control Treaty. He was at the forefront of the effort to create the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and in 1994 he authored legislation to strengthen and revitalize that agency to meet the growing challenges in arms control and nonproliferation. He led the fight in the Senate's passage of treaties such as the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, the Peaceful Nuclear Explosions Treaty, and START I and II. He shepherded these treaties successfully through the Senate and today the United States is party to all of them. Senator Pell's achievements in the realm of foreign affairs are paralleled by numerous accomplishments in the domestic area. He left his mark on the arts, particularly through his sponsorship of legislation to establish the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities, on the area of high-speed transportation and on the environment. Besides his many years of work on the law of the sea, he was also the Senate author of the National Seagrant College and Land Act, legislation which brought much needed money not only to the University of Rhode Island but also to universities in other coastal States such as my own. He was the driving force behind the Federal legislation to help crack down on drunk driving. Thanks to Claiborne Pell, thousands of young Americans today go to college on Pell grants. His love of education and of those seeking to be educated are epitomized by the annual picnic that he holds at his home for all the students from Rhode Island who are here at college, and come rain or shine or votes on the Senate floor, Senator Pell and his wife, Nuala, are always there to greet the students and show them a little bit of the friendly hometown side of Washington. Senator Pell has always had his personal and committee staffs present so that students could learn from them. Throughout his years in the Senate, Mr. President, Claiborne Pell has served the people of Rhode Island ably and diligently, and I think all of our colleagues have been deeply impressed by the personal affection that so many Rhode Islanders have shown to Senator Pell. That is not only reciprocation for the affection he has clearly shown for them but it reflects his longstanding tradition of never closing his door to any Rhode Islander who wished to meet with him. Senator Pell has now decided that the time has come to leave the Senate and undertake new challenges. I for one will miss him, as I know many of my colleagues will. He brought great grace and charm to whatever he did here, and I know that everyone believes we have lost a true gentleman whose accomplishments are in the highest tradition of the Senate. I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. H.R. 3539, the FAA Reauthorization conference agreement, is, primarily, a good bill--a very good bill--and one whose contents are of great importance to the people of this country. Several Senators including Senator Hollings, Senator Pressler, Senator Ford, and Senator McCain have worked for many months to craft this important legislation. They deserve great credit for shepherding the bill through the Commerce Committee and then obtaining passage with a vote of 99-0 on the Senate floor. These Senators and their fine staffs--specifically, I would like to recognize the work of Sam Whitehorn on the minority side--produced a non-controversial, sensible bill that addresses a critical need of our Nation. We need to pass an FAA Reauthorization bill because of the pivotal role that the FAA plays in our Nation's transportation infrastructure. We ask the FAA each year to ensure the safety of all civil aviation and to oversee the continued development of our national system of airports. Through a comprehensive program that includes a vast air traffic control network, and thousands of maintenance inspections of our Nation's civilian airlines, the FAA carries out the important task of ensuring the safety of the millions of Americans that utilize air travel each year. Significantly, this conference agreement provides to the FAA the necessary tools to carry out these important tasks. It provides $9.54 billion in total budget authority for the FAA for fiscal year 1997 including $5.16 billion for operations, $2.28 billion for the Airport Improvement Program, and $2.1 billion for facilities and equipment. This total figure represents an increase of $1.39 billion over the FAA's total budget authority for fiscal year 1996 and an increase of $1.33 billion over the administration's budget request. In addition, Massachusetts needs Congress to pass an FAA reauthorization bill because we rely so heavily on air transport for both people and cargo and because the Airport Improvement Program is so crucial to our State. From Logan Airport in Boston to the smaller airports located in Nantucket, Hyannis, Martha's Vineyard, Worcester, New Bedford and Provincetown, airports and air transport are critical to the economic and social travel needs of the people of Massachusetts. This legislation is good for the people of Massachusetts. It contains additional AIP funding for Massachusetts airports in fiscal year 1997 beyond the amounts these airports are entitled to receive under current law. And it also increases the amount of discretionary funding that the State of Massachusetts can distribute to airports and related projects. This conference agreement also contains an important provision to improve the security of our Nation's airports that will result in greater safety for commercial flights originating at U.S. airports. I have been pushing the FAA for several years to begin to use existing advanced technologies, far more capable than x rays and metal detectors, to screen passenger baggage for explosives before it is placed on aircraft. The conference agreement instructs the FAA to move forward in this respect. Rather than awaiting the advent of a new sensor technology that can meet all desired sensor standards perfectly or nearly perfectly, the FAA is instructed to procure and implement use of the best currently available technology--which is the approach taken by virtually all major European airports. There is simply no reason of which I am aware for the United States not to take this important step. Unfortunately, this important legislation, which is strongly supported by Senator Kennedy, Senator Simon, Senator Feingold, and all others in this Chamber, became mired in a dispute over a four-line provision--tacked on to the bill in conference--that is unrelated to the otherwise important and bipartisan task of reauthorizing the FAA. This provision amends the Railway Labor Act to make it substantially more difficult for certain Federal Express employees to organize. I do not support this provision which amends labor law in a controversial way on a bill that is totally unrelated to labor law, and, because of the addition of that provision, I voted against the cloture motion to end debate on the FAA conference agreement. I hoped the Senate would reject cloture, confident that if cloture was not invoked, this FAA legislation would have been brought back to the floor without the controversial provision, and passed by unanimous consent. That is what I believe the Senate should have done. Now that cloture has been invoked, and another effort to remove the provision because it was outside the scope of the conference committee was rejected by the Senate, we confront the great importance of passing an FAA reauthorization bill before this Congress adjourns. Once again, I compliment those who led the Senate in assembling the aviation provisions of this bill. It is a good bill that will contribute much to our Nation. I will vote for it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, even in an age of spin control, when it is often difficult to wade through the rhetoric to find the truth, it is possible to determine the true measure of a government. That measure can be found quite revealingly in the budget. For it is in the budget that the priorities become clear. It is in the budget that the rhetorical claims can be separated from the real claims. In Elizabethan England, as the old saw tells us, the proof may have been in the pudding. But in modern day America, the proof of an administration's or a political party's claims is in its budget proposals. We have just come through two exceptionally challenging years. The Republican Party, led by Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and then- Senate majority leader and now Presidential nominee Bob Dole, sought to upend government--to eliminate or slash service after service upon which Americans depend. The effect of their efforts, had they been successful, would have been to heap on the rich and the powerful in this Nation even greater riches and power. Those additional riches and power would have come at the expense of working Americans, at the expense of the environment which we have been laboring for decades to clean up, at the expense of those who need health care, at the expense of children and young people seeking quality education, at the expense of those who have been victimized by crime, drug abuse, and domestic violence, at the expense of America's future. The Republican Party correctly identified the importance of gaining control of our Nation's fiscal household, but then threw wisdom and prudence to the wind, and concluded that the only legitimate objective was to slash Federal spending, regardless of how or where, regardless of the harm that would be caused to our Nation and its people as a result of those actions. Paradoxically, the only large category of discretionary spending Republicans excepted from their frenzied assault was that for armies and weapons, despite the fact that the cold war ended over 5 years ago, and that, for the first time in 50 years, we have no superpower adversary. The budget the Republicans brought forward last year dramatized this extremist philosophy. It portrayed a singular absence of vision, confirming that the Republican party neither understood nor subscribed to the concept of investment in the future by our Government on behalf of this Nation's citizens. The Democrats in the Senate and the House, led by President Clinton, rejected this extreme agenda. We did not shy from the fierce conflict the Republicans promised if anyone dared challenge their zealous actions to demolish vital services. After nearly a year of pitched battle over the 1996 budget--that resulted in several Government shutdowns--it became clear even to the Republicans that the American people did not support their objectives or their approach. A budget finally was enacted halfway through the fiscal year that came much closer to reflecting the principles and priorities Democrats had consistently said the American people supported. But while the Republicans acknowledged tactical defeat, they had not yet learned the lesson. Once again, in the form of the 1997 budget, they showed their true colors. Once again, they launched forth in pursuit of an extremist agenda to cut education funding, cut job training, cut health care, cut law enforcement assistance, cut assistance to small businesses, cut programs to help American companies more effectively compete with foreign firms. Again, the Clinton administration and congressional Democrats met them head-on. Today we have reached the end of this second budget campaign of the 104th Congress. Once again, because the congressional Democrats more accurately reflected the values and views of the American people, the Republicans' budget has been repudiated in large measure. This time, in fact, the battle has been won with far less bloodshed and in far less time. The Republicans, knowing they did not have the support of the majority of the Nation, and knowing the elections are only weeks away, ran up the white flag almost as soon as the battle was really joined. Mr. President, the American people are the winners. The future of our Nation is the winner. I am relieved and heartened to see that our democratic process has operated in such a way as to earn our faith and confidence. With the leadership of President Clinton and his administration, we have taken a devastating Republican budget and transformed it into one that manages to pass the basic test of responsibility. I commend the President and the Vice President for their courage and resolve. I commend White House Chief of Staff Panetta and his staff, the Office of Management and Budget, and others from the Administration who were involved. Also deserving of praise are Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle and his staff, Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Robert Byrd and his staff, and the subcommittee ranking members and their staffs. While none of us has ever seen a budget that is identical to the one he or she would have proposed, the budget that emerged from the negotiations in the wee hours of this past Saturday morning is one that I can support. It is true that the portions that address our Government's domestic services generally are preferable to the portion that addresses defense; the defense portion provides more funding than we need in the post-cold-war era to ensure our national security. We have pressing domestic needs to which this surplus defense funding would be more beneficially targeted. And some of this excess funding beyond the Defense Department's request should be used to further reduce the deficit, a vital objective. Not only for this reason--but significantly for this reason--this legislation could be better; it could be stronger; it could be fairer. But it passes the threshold test. With many reservations, I voted for it because it is better than anything we've seen in the past 2 years; it is better than we were afraid we would see this year; and it protects and in some cases enhances some vital services for the American people. In some cases the best that can be said for it is that it preserves important services through another year so that we may return to attempt to allocate sufficient resources to them next year. But that was enough to secure my vote. I would like to mention several of the bill's components that are of particular importance to Massachusetts and the Nation.