John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today, joined by my friend, colleague, and esteemed senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, to help ensure that the 10 million uninsured children in this country get the health care they need and their parents get the peace of mind they deserve. Mr. President, the fact is that most of these 10 million uninsured children have parents who work--90 percent of these uninsured children have parents who work, according to the General Accounting Office [GAO]. And three out of five of these children have parents who work fulltime during the entire year. Unfortunately, the problem of uninsured children is getting worse, not better--each year, more than 1 million additional children lose private insurance. No parent should have to choose between medicine for a sick child and food for the family. The thought of a mother and father, working hard to make ends meet, waking up in the middle of the night with a child in pain, and waiting to see if the pain passes because they cannot afford to go to the hospital, is a stark image of a national tragedy. Mr. President, American children without health care are alone in the world--we are the only Western industrialized nation that does not provide health care for every child. I am proposing today with Senator Kennedy a voluntary subsidy program to help working families to purchase private health insurance for their children. Only families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid would be eligible to receive these vouchers. Participation in the voucher program would be voluntary. The premium subsidy would be provided on a sliding scale with families earning 185 percent or less of the poverty line receiving the full subsidy; the subsidy would phase down so that families earning more than 300 percent of the poverty line would not receive a subsidy. Cost-sharing would be limited but everyone would pay something. The proposal includes a comprehensive benefits package with a full range of the essential services needed by children. The total cost of the plan is $24 billion over 5 years and is paid for by a combination of cuts in corporate welfare and a tobacco tax increase. Although it is apparent there is no chance the plan will be enacted this year, with Congress now in its final hour before adjourning prior to the election, we are introducing it as a bill today because we want to place this issue prominently on the national agenda during the next few months preceding convening of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I want to discuss 2 of the 10 million compelling reasons to provide basic health insurance to children who are not covered now. One of the first reasons is a 13-year-old student in Lynn, MA, named Costa Billias. He played football at Breed Junior High and loved the game, but said, ``For the past 2 years I gave my best to football, but my mom explained that we were not insured and if I got hurt we would lose our house and everything we own to pay the hospital.'' He quit the team, but he cannot quit life. If he gets hurt doing something else, his family still stands to lose everything. In addition, I think it is wrong that Costa Billias is being denied the opportunity to play football again. One more of the 10 million reasons we must pass this bill is the Pierce family. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married in 1980 and live in Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber and they had three children, Leonard, Brianna, and Alyssa. In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her fourth child when Jim was tragically killed on his way home from the store. In that one horrible minute her life changed forever. She not only lost her husband, but, pregnant and alone, she lost her health insurance as well. Her survivor's benefits made her income too high to qualify for long-term Medicaid, and too low to pay the $400 a month it would take to extend her husband's health plan. Sylvia said, ``I've always taken good care of my children. I feed them well; I take them to the doctors immediately when they need it. All of a sudden I couldn't do that anymore. Mr. President, in addition to the moral imperative, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that lack of health coverage is bad for children, delaying medical care or making it impossible to get. A recent study in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] found that children with health coverage gaps were more likely to lack a continuing and regular source of health care--even when factors such as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility were factored out. Numerous studies by university researchers and by government agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive preventive care (such as immunizations for children), more likely to go to emergency rooms for their care, more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care, and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with health insurance coverage. Mr. President, every hour we wait to take this step, another 114 children lose private health insurance. Every 30 seconds we wait, another child loses private health insurance. America's children cannot wait any longer. Families without insurance are forced to pay the full cost of medical services--an impossible burden for struggling families, one that often takes a back seat to putting food on the table and a roof over the children's heads. Mr. President, this plan is an important, incremental step toward guaranteeing health coverage for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce legislation today, joined by my friend, colleague, and esteemed senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, to help ensure that the 10 million uninsured children in this country get the health care they need and their parents get the peace of mind they deserve. Mr. President, the fact is that most of these 10 million uninsured children have parents who work--90 percent of these uninsured children have parents who work, according to the General Accounting Office [GAO]. And three out of five of these children have parents who work fulltime during the entire year. Unfortunately, the problem of uninsured children is getting worse, not better--each year, more than 1 million additional children lose private insurance. No parent should have to choose between medicine for a sick child and food for the family. The thought of a mother and father, working hard to make ends meet, waking up in the middle of the night with a child in pain, and waiting to see if the pain passes because they cannot afford to go to the hospital, is a stark image of a national tragedy. Mr. President, American children without health care are alone in the world--we are the only Western industrialized nation that does not provide health care for every child. I am proposing today with Senator Kennedy a voluntary subsidy program to help working families to purchase private health insurance for their children. Only families with incomes too high to qualify for Medicaid would be eligible to receive these vouchers. Participation in the voucher program would be voluntary. The premium subsidy would be provided on a sliding scale with families earning 185 percent or less of the poverty line receiving the full subsidy; the subsidy would phase down so that families earning more than 300 percent of the poverty line would not receive a subsidy. Cost-sharing would be limited but everyone would pay something. The proposal includes a comprehensive benefits package with a full range of the essential services needed by children. The total cost of the plan is $24 billion over 5 years and is paid for by a combination of cuts in corporate welfare and a tobacco tax increase. Although it is apparent there is no chance the plan will be enacted this year, with Congress now in its final hour before adjourning prior to the election, we are introducing it as a bill today because we want to place this issue prominently on the national agenda during the next few months preceding convening of the 105th Congress. Mr. President, I want to discuss 2 of the 10 million compelling reasons to provide basic health insurance to children who are not covered now. One of the first reasons is a 13-year-old student in Lynn, MA, named Costa Billias. He played football at Breed Junior High and loved the game, but said, ``For the past 2 years I gave my best to football, but my mom explained that we were not insured and if I got hurt we would lose our house and everything we own to pay the hospital.'' He quit the team, but he cannot quit life. If he gets hurt doing something else, his family still stands to lose everything. In addition, I think it is wrong that Costa Billias is being denied the opportunity to play football again. One more of the 10 million reasons we must pass this bill is the Pierce family. Jim and Sylvia Pierce were married in 1980 and live in Everett, MA. Jim was a plumber and they had three children, Leonard, Brianna, and Alyssa. In October 1993, Sylvia was pregnant with her fourth child when Jim was tragically killed on his way home from the store. In that one horrible minute her life changed forever. She not only lost her husband, but, pregnant and alone, she lost her health insurance as well. Her survivor's benefits made her income too high to qualify for long-term Medicaid, and too low to pay the $400 a month it would take to extend her husband's health plan. Sylvia said, ``I've always taken good care of my children. I feed them well; I take them to the doctors immediately when they need it. All of a sudden I couldn't do that anymore. Mr. President, in addition to the moral imperative, the scientific evidence is overwhelming that lack of health coverage is bad for children, delaying medical care or making it impossible to get. A recent study in JAMA [the Journal of the American Medical Association] found that children with health coverage gaps were more likely to lack a continuing and regular source of health care--even when factors such as family income, chronic illness, and family mobility were factored out. Numerous studies by university researchers and by government agencies show that the uninsured are less likely to receive preventive care (such as immunizations for children), more likely to go to emergency rooms for their care, more likely to be hospitalized for conditions that could have been avoided with proper preventive care, and more likely to have longer hospital stays than individuals with health insurance coverage. Mr. President, every hour we wait to take this step, another 114 children lose private health insurance. Every 30 seconds we wait, another child loses private health insurance. America's children cannot wait any longer. Families without insurance are forced to pay the full cost of medical services--an impossible burden for struggling families, one that often takes a back seat to putting food on the table and a roof over the children's heads. Mr. President, this plan is an important, incremental step toward guaranteeing health coverage for all Americans. I urge my colleagues to support it.

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 1996, which would establish whistle blower protection for aviation workers. The worker protections contained in the Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA] are of great importance to American workers. A number of members of this body have worked hard to maintain those protections. 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 face the possibility of harassment, discipline, and even termination if they work for unscrupulous airlines and report 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 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 Clyburn who has introduced the bill in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3187. 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. 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 1996, which would establish whistle blower protection for aviation workers. The worker protections contained in the Occupational Safety and Health Act [OSHA] are of great importance to American workers. A number of members of this body have worked hard to maintain those protections. 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 face the possibility of harassment, discipline, and even termination if they work for unscrupulous airlines and report 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 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 Clyburn who has introduced the bill in the House of Representatives as H.R. 3187. 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. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, since the day I arrived in the Senate nearly twelve years ago, I have worked hard to address the many challenges confronting our ocean and coastal resources. After all, few states draw as much of their national and regional identity from their coastal areas and contiguous oceans as does Massachusetts. Often with my distinguished colleagues, the Senator from South Carolina, Senator Hollings, and the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, I have worked to improve national marine resource management. My efforts have come through my membership on the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, and particularly as ranking member on the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee and as co-chair of the subcommittee's predecessor, the former National Ocean Policy Study (NOPS). Over the past 25 years, Congress has worked to develop innovative policy solutions to enable the long-term protection, conservation, utilization and management of our vulnerable marine resources. We have acted to ensure strong coastal economies in Massachusetts and a clean, healthy coastal environment from the Gulf of Maine to the Gulfs of Mexico and Alaska. One of these innovative programs is the Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act, which in 1976 introduced the new concept of domestic fishery management councils to guide the development of commercial fishery management plans. In close concert with Senator Stevens, Senator Hollings and several other Senators, I have worked long and hard during this Congress to strengthen and reauthorize the Magnuson Act. I am delighted that this effort has been successful and that the bill is on its way to the White House for the President's signature. It will greatly aid us in ensuring ecologically and economically sustainable fisheries for future generations. Another successful innovation in marine resource protection has been the National Marine Sanctuary Program, created in 1972 and last reauthorized in 1992. Administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Marine Sanctuary Program is a proven success and one in which we should all take pride. I strongly support the National Marine Sanctuaries Preservation Act and urge my colleagues to support this very important reauthorization bill. H.R. 543 represents another step toward fulfilling a national commitment to further protect our coastal oceans, sustain marine biological diversity and fishery stocks, and encourage comprehensive natural resource management that provides for appropriate recreational and commercial activities. The marine sanctuary program successfully demonstrates that environmental protection and economic opportunity can co-exist. We can have both jobs and environmental conservation. H.R. 543 is a straightforward reauthorization bill. It makes only minor changes to the Sanctuaries Act, and on balance, it strengthens the sanctuary program. The bill provides $45.5 million over the next 3 fiscal years to fund the management of the 14 existing marine sanctuaries, including the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary off Massachusetts Bay. I am assured by NOAA that this amount is adequate to sustain present management activities at all existing sanctuaries. In addition, this bill provides important authority to NOAA to develop alternative funding sources to augment government spending and enhance marine sanctuary research and management activities. This bill makes permanent the temporary authority given to NOAA in 1992 to market and license a sanctuary program logo developed as part of a pilot logo program. Not only will this revenue enhancement program broaden the recognition of the sanctuary program, it will provide opportunities to develop supplemental funding to support sanctuary management activities. Amounts generated from this new initiative are expected to be quite limited at first, but are an important step in the long-term development of the marine sanctuary program. H.R. 543 also addresses the current controversy regarding the designation of a new marine sanctuary in Washington state. The members of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation have worked closely with Senator Murray to address these concerns and we are pleased that this bill reflects those changes agreed upon. Finally, Mr. President, I would be remiss if I did not at this time recognize the dedication to the cause of ocean and coastal resource protection of my esteemed colleague and friend from Massachusetts, Gerry E. Studds, who has been an outstanding leader in the Congress on this issue. For the 20 years that Gerry Studds has served in Congress, he has demonstrated time and time again a responsiveness to the needs of his constituents. These needs understandably have been shaped very often by the important marine and coastal resources of Massachusetts. Through his close and constant association with the ocean, Gerry Studds has developed a sensitivity and insight into the complexity of the marine and coastal environment that few members could challenge. This insight has served him well as a Chairman of the former House Merchant Marine and Fisheries Committee, and in his present capacity as ranking member on the House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans. Let there be no mistake: Gerry Studds' mark on national environmental policy, especially in the marine environment, has been profound. Section 11 of H.R. 543 formally changes the name of the existing Stellwagen Bank sanctuary off the coast of Massachusetts to the ``Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.'' I realize after having worked closely with Congressman Studds on the designation of Stellwagen Bank in 1992 how deeply he feels about this very special place. It is a fitting tribute that this unique marine resource, which he worked so hard to protect for future generations, should bear his name. His knowledge, his expertise and his humor will all be missed. I will miss him as a friend and colleague in the Congress. But the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary will remain a constant reminder of his impressive environmental legacy. In closing, Mr. President, I have worked closely this Congress with my friend, the Chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, Senator Stevens, to pass strong, positive marine resources legislation that reflects and reaffirms the importance of ocean and coastal resources to our Nation and ensures they are treated as the priceless and essential natural resources they are. Not unlike the Sustainable Fisheries Act (S. 39), the Antarctica bill (H.R. 3060), and the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Management Act (H.R. 1965), this bill is another positive step toward ensuring that our Nation's vital marine and coastal resources are conserved and sensibly managed for the benefit of all. I wholeheartedly support this bill and urge my colleagues to do the same.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleagues Senators Stevens, Hollings, and Breaux in bringing this bill before the Senate today to authorize the programs and activities of the United States Coast Guard for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. In this time of dramatic changes in our society and our Government, I speak in support of an agency which I think virtually everyone if not absolutely everyone can agree is a good investment--the United States Coast Guard. This is something that I have observed at close range; the Coast Guard is vital to my state of Massachusetts, with its hundreds of miles of coastline, unforgiving storms, bustling maritime industry, history-rich fishing industry and thriving recreational boating population. Moreover, the Coast Guard is vital to the safety and well-being of citizens in every coastal state, and in every state with navigable waters. Today, over 50 percent of the U.S. population lives within the coastal zone, and directly benefits from the services the Coast Guard provides. Indirectly, the Coast Guard provides invaluable services to every American. In fact, more than two-thirds of the total budget for the Coast Guard is used for its operating expenses, as it provides for the public safety, protects the marine environment, enforces laws and treaties, maintains aids to navigation, prevents illegal drug trafficking and illegal immigration, and preserves defense readiness. As we act on this bill, it is fitting that we briefly review the history of our Nation's oldest continuous seagoing service--that has fought in almost every war since the Constitution established our government in 1789. Throughout its history of over two hundred years, the Coast Guard has served as a multi-mission service, flexible enough to adjust to the needs of the nation in peacetime as well as wartime. From its origins as the Revenue Cutter Service enforcing tariff laws of the young nation under Alexander Hamilton's command in 1789, to its activities today of saving lives, enforcing U.S. laws and treaties, ensuring maritime safety and defense, maintaining safe navigation and protecting the environment, the Coast Guard has served and continues to serve the nation well. Because of this legacy of service, I believe it is our responsibility to ensure that the Coast Guard has adequate resources for its missions as it prepares for the next century. We should be concerned that the Coast Guard is capable of meeting its existing mandates and recognize the Coast Guard's ever-expanding roles and missions in our coastal waters and beyond. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a long and storied involvement with the sea and the Coast Guard. One of Alexander Hamilton's 10 original revenue cutters was built in the city of Newburyport. Today's Coast Guard cutters are stationed in the ports of Boston, Gloucester, Woods Hole, and New Bedford. The first lighthouse built in the country was Boston Light in 1716. Today, Boston Light stands as the only manned lighthouse still in operation in the United States. The people of Massachusetts love the water and many rely on it directly or indirectly for their livelihood. The men and women of the Coast Guard keep watch over the fishing fleets, the maritime industry, and the over 145,000 recreational boats registered in Massachusetts. Indeed, I believe that Massachusetts has a unique and historic relationship with the Coast Guard. But we all know that the Coast Guard's mission does not end at our shore. It protects all of our interests throughout the world, in times of war and peace. From supporting U.S. peacekeepers in Haiti, to responding to oil spills in the Persian Gulf, to supporting drug interdiction efforts in South and Central America, the Coast Guard has been there. Its work has been exemplary, but it seems that we continually ask the Coast Guard to do more with less, a practice that has persisted for some time. The Coast Guard is now in the process of a 4-year downsizing and streamlining which will ultimately reduce the Service by 12 percent--4,000 people and $400 million. I believe that we must eventually acknowledge the finite limitations on Coast Guard capabilities and resources and I am deeply concerned about some of the choices that it will be forced to make. The bill before us today will assist the Coast Guard in this respect, allowing it to do its job more effectively and efficiently. This ultimately will benefit the public by increasing the level of safety on the Nation's waterways. This bill contains an assortment of significant provisions. Long awaited by the maritime industry, the Coast Guard regulatory reform provisions contained in the bill will eliminate unnecessary and burdensome regulations on American shipping companies, enabling them to be more competitive in the world market. This reform will save precious resources while also relieving an unnecessary burden from a struggling industry. A provision amending the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships will strengthen Coast Guard enforcement capability for protecting the environment from plastics, will ensure adequate waste reception facilities at ports and terminals, and will encourage public education and reporting programs. To increase the tools in our war on drugs, the bill will provide new authority for Federal law enforcement officials by eliminating the potential defense of some would-be drug smugglers arrested during a vessel boarding at sea by the Coast Guard. Some smugglers have thwarted prosecution by claiming protection of another country's flag during legal proceedings, when at the time of the Coast Guard boarding at sea when they were arrested, they claimed their vessel was a stateless vessel. To make the best use of an existing technology, and to prevent a dangerous disconnect to develop during the migration to a new navigation technology, the bill calls for the Coast Guard to develop a plan for the transition from the current ground-based radio navigation technology [LORAN-C] system to a satellite-based technology, global positioning system or GPS. For safety, this plan will include an appropriate timetable for transition from LORAN-C after it is determined that GPS can serve adequately as a sole means of safe and efficient navigation. The plan must also take into consideration the need to ensure that LORAN-C equipment purchased by the public before the year 2000 has a useful economic life. This provision ensures that those that made the financial investment in LORAN-C equipment will not suddenly find that system is worthless. The Coast Guard's efforts to downsize and streamline have been admirable, and, in general, I support the Coast Guard's plans to streamline and consolidate operations where possible. In fact, I applaud the Coast Guard's recently announced streamlining plans which do not close or consolidate any front-line operating units while they reduce the Service's personnel by 1,000 people and its overhead expense by $100 million. However, I am concerned by the proposal to close 23 of the Coast Guard's front-line Small Boat Stations as a cost cutting effort to save $6 million. Another important issue is involved in the Coast Guard's proposed closing of small boat stations. I have looked closely at the criteria used by the Coast Guard to develop the closure and station modification lists and was surprised to find absent from the criteria any consideration of local and regional factors, including water temperature and unusual tidal or current conditions. The Coast Guard uses a ``one-size-fits-all'' approach to determining response time for its small boat stations. I believe that other important regional criteria such as severe weather conditions and tides and currents should be considered as well. For example, in some regions these conditions could slow the average response, and colder water temperatures could necessitate a quicker response time. In 1789, Treasury Secretary Hamilton, the founding father of the service that eventually became the Coast Guard, was the first to acknowledge that such conditions matter when he allowed additional funding for the construction of two larger revenue cutters in order to handle the harsh weather conditions off the coast of New England. These conditions have not changed, and it is equally legitimate and essential today for local and regional conditions to be addressed in any Coast Guard decision process. This is not a consideration limited only to Massachusetts--or even to the New England region. Especially challenging conditions exist in numbers of regions, including, for example, the Great Lakes and the Northwest Pacific. The Coast Guard criteria also appear to exclude consideration of vital Coast Guard missions other than search and rescue--including marine environmental protection; boating safety; enforcement of drug, illegal alien, and fisheries laws. In determining whether to close a station, I believe it is important for the Coast Guard to take into account all the services provided by the station. The Coast Guard also should contemplate the alternative measures for maintaining the station's current level of service in the area it serves. The provisions in this bill establish a more detailed and public process to address station closure issues and those enunciated by the Senate appropriations Committee last year. My provision includes the appropriators' prohibition on station closures for fiscal year 1996. However, the provision in this bill does not prohibit station closures in the future; it only requires the Coast Guard to take into consideration the unique local and regional conditions, including water temperature, in reaching a closure decision. It also requires the Coast Guard to determine and take into account the cop on the beat effect of the station. The presence of the station, and boats and Coast Guard personnel on the water, has a positive impact on local boaters and serves as a deterrent to crime. This provision also requires the Secretary of Transportation to ensure that the closure of a station will not result in the degradation of services that would cause significant increased threat to life, property, environment, public safety or national security. Also important, the provision requires public review procedures to be established and used by the Coast Guard so that those coastal communities most impacted by the closure of a station can submit comments on their concerns before the final decision is made. Ultimately, though, nothing in the bill prohibits the Secretary of Transportation from implementing management efficiencies within the small boat system, such as modifying the operational posture of units or reallocating resources as necessary to ensure the safety of the maritime public nationwide. I believe that my provision gives the Coast Guard the flexibility to make the operational changes it needs to make, but ensures that coastal communities, their residents, and the environment are not put at risk by closing a station. I am extremely pleased to have secured another key provision for Massachusetts in this bill--language that will permit financing to go forward to revitalize the Fore River Shipyard in Quincy, MA. Section 1139 of the bill is based on an amendment originally sought by Senator Kennedy and me in the Commerce-State-Justice appropriation bill for fiscal year 1997, and later amended by Majority Leader Lott. In my view, Senator Lott has not inappropriately toughened up the language. In the case of the Quincy project, this language will place a greater responsibility on the Commonwealth of Massachussets to help underwrite the necessary financing. I am satisfied that the new language leaves enough discretion to the Maritime Administration so that a suitable arrangement can be reached that is both affordable and acceptable to the Commonwealth. This is a matter on which I, Senator Kennedy, and Representative Studds have been working for over a year. Specifically, section 1139 establishes the basis for the Secretary of Transportation to assist certain shipyards, including the yard at Quincy, by facilitating the extension of Federal loan guarantees for the reactivation and modernization of those yards and the construction of vessels by the yards. Significantly, this section has been carefully drafted to provide several layers of protection to the Federal taxpayer, and to ensure the State where a yard is located shoulders a degree of the financial burden of revitalizing the yard, and also a portion of the financial risk. For example, subsection (d) requires the State or a State chartered agency where the yard is located to deposit the amount of funds needed to cover the percentage of the risk factor cost under the Federal Credit Reform Act into the Federal treasury, and provides for the reversion of the funds to the State if no obligation needs to be paid from the deposited funds. I fully expect that the percentage of the risk factor under this subsection will never exceed 12 percent. It appears to me that a deposit from the State of 12 percent will be more than adequate to fulfill the requirements associated with the risk of default for a project of this nature. This provision is significant to my State because the Quincy Shipyard project is the first of its kind. It is the first project to revitalize an inoperative shipyard and put it back into production as a state-of- the-art facility that will employ up to two thousand workers in good jobs. This is an amendment that makes sense, because the proposal to revitalize the Quincy Shipyard will turn it into a shipyard on the cutting edge of technology and one which will produce vessels that will be in demand in the international marketplace for years--double-hulled oil tankers to carry petroleum safely around the world. The Federal Government's investment in the Quincy Shipyard will be repaid many times over through the jobs that will be created, and through the renewed position of American maritime leadership that the project will help us attain. Now that Congress has done its part, it is incumbent upon the Commonwealth, the city of Quincy, the Massachussets Heavy Industries Corp., and the Maritime Administration to make this project a reality. This bill is the culmination of almost 2 years of effort. and I would like to thank the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Stevens, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and the committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Hollings, for their hard work in bringing this bipartisan bill to the floor. I believe this bill and the work of the four of us provide a superb example of how this institution can effectively write and pass good law. I also would like to acknowledge the hard work and long hours invested by the staffs on both sides of the aisle, including Penny Dalton and Lila Helms on the Commerce Committee minority staff, and Tom Melius, Trevor McCabe, and Jim Sartucci of the majority staff. On my personal staff, I would like to acknowledge the work of Kate English, Steve Metruck, Peter Hill and Tom Richey on this bill. This bill is carefully considered, and carefully written. It merits passage. I urge my colleagues to vote for it today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to cosponsor with my colleague from Montana, Senator Conrad Burns, the Senate substitute to H.R. 2779, the Savings in Construction Act of 1996. This important legislation will amend the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 to enable lighting and masonry companies in Massachusetts and around the country to compete for Federal contracts. Under present law, each Federal agency is required to use the metric system in its procurements, grants, and other business related activities. In certain instances, the act requires that specific products be produced in round metric dimensions. This requirement effectively mandates that such products, known as ``hard-metric'' products, be slightly altered from their current dimensions, thus forcing companies to undergo costly retooling and other production changes if they intend to compete for Federal contracts. Though the act contains an exception where metric conversion is likely to cause significant cost or market loss to U.S. firms, this exception has been implemented too narrowly, and, therefore, the act has caused substantial hardship to segments of the electrical and concrete masonry industries in Massachusetts and elsewhere. Indeed, several companies in my State, such as Lightolier, Inc., in Wilmington, MA, have had to turn down opportunities to compete for Federal contracts because they could not feasibly manufacture the necessary materials according to hard metric dimensions. The implementation of the Metric Act in this manner has ultimately resulted in the U.S. Government paying a substantially inflated price for basic products such as bricks and lighting fixtures because companies that do undergo the cost of producing hard-metric products for Federal contracts often offer the products at a premium. This bill will make commonsense changes to the procurement process. It will allow Federal agency officials to require that concrete masonry and lighting products subject to Federal procurement be expressed in metric terms. However, agency officials will not be permitted to demand that such products be produced according to hard-metric specifications without first making specific findings that such requirements will save Federal dollars. In addition, to ensure that this bill is implemented in a commonsense manner, it requires each agency that awards construction contracts to designate a senior official as a ``construction metrication ombudsman.'' Among other things, the ombudsman would be responsible for reviewing and responding to complaints from prospective bidders, subcontractors, and suppliers relating to agency actions on the use of the metric system in construction contracts. The ombudsman also would be responsible for ensuring that the agency is not implementing the metric system in a manner that causes significant inefficiencies or market loss to U.S. firms. I would like to thank the Commerce Committee ranking Democrat, Senator Hollings, and his fine staff, Pat Windham, for their efforts in bringing this bill forward during this especially busy time as this 104th Congress is concluded. I wish to recognize the fine work of Senator Pell, whose continued dedication to metric conversion we all have come to admire. I also wish to thank Senator John Glenn and Senator Ted Stevens and their staffs on the Governmental Affairs Committee. Finally, I wish to thank Senator Burns for sponsoring the legislation in the Senate and for his continued persistence on this matter.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and I are introducing the Transitional Health Insurance Coverage for Workers Between Jobs Act. This bill would build on the recently passed Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill by providing funding to States in order to finance up to 6 months of health coverage for unemployed workers and their families. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was an important step toward assuring portability of health insurance coverage. More than 20 million people will benefit from that legislation and the senior Senator from Massachusetts deserves our thanks for his tireless efforts to achieve its passage. Unfortunately, however, although more people are now allowed to purchase health care coverage, many workers are still unable to afford this coverage. Those workers who have been laid off are most likely not to be able to obtain coverage. The bill we are introducing today would help temporarily unemployed workers to afford health coverage for themselves and their families. It would do so by providing Federal assistance to pay the premium for health insurance. A worker would be eligible who had employer-based coverage in his or her prior job, is receiving unemployment benefits, and has income below certain levels. Families would have to earn no more than $37,440 for a family of four to qualify for the subsidy. People who are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare would not be able to receive this subsidy. Funds would be allocated to States based on the proportion of unemployed persons in the State who collected unemployment insurance [UI] benefits relative to all persons in the Nation who collected UI benefits. This bill is necessary because, in the real world, workers between jobs still face mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, and other expenses necessary to support themselves and their families in addition to health insurance costs. Many lack a source of income and have exhausted family savings and other resources during the period of unemployment. And unemployment insurance in most states barely pays enough to cover rent and food--the average monthly UI benefit was only $692 in 1993. In today's increasingly turbulent economy, a secure job is difficult to find. This year in Massachusetts, for example, such major corporations as Digital, Raytheon, and Fleet Bank have laid off hundreds of workers. And over the last few years, most of the major hospitals in my State have significantly downsized their work force. This bill will help workers as they move to new jobs. I want to squarely address the issue of the cost of this program. The administration has estimated the annual cost to be approximately $2 billion. But I want to make clear that we are committed to fully offsetting the cost with other budget components. I am heartened that President Clinton was able to support establishing such a program in the context of his fiscal year 1997 balanced budget request. Senator Kennedy has described two corporate loopholes we propose to close. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to identifying a budget offset that is acceptable to my colleagues for this important program. As Senator Kennedy said, this plan will not add to the deficit, does not impose additional burdens on employers, and is not an unfunded mandate on States. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to refine this bill and to pass it in the 105th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Kennedy and I are introducing the Transitional Health Insurance Coverage for Workers Between Jobs Act. This bill would build on the recently passed Kennedy-Kassebaum health bill by providing funding to States in order to finance up to 6 months of health coverage for unemployed workers and their families. The Kennedy-Kassebaum bill was an important step toward assuring portability of health insurance coverage. More than 20 million people will benefit from that legislation and the senior Senator from Massachusetts deserves our thanks for his tireless efforts to achieve its passage. Unfortunately, however, although more people are now allowed to purchase health care coverage, many workers are still unable to afford this coverage. Those workers who have been laid off are most likely not to be able to obtain coverage. The bill we are introducing today would help temporarily unemployed workers to afford health coverage for themselves and their families. It would do so by providing Federal assistance to pay the premium for health insurance. A worker would be eligible who had employer-based coverage in his or her prior job, is receiving unemployment benefits, and has income below certain levels. Families would have to earn no more than $37,440 for a family of four to qualify for the subsidy. People who are eligible for Medicaid or Medicare would not be able to receive this subsidy. Funds would be allocated to States based on the proportion of unemployed persons in the State who collected unemployment insurance [UI] benefits relative to all persons in the Nation who collected UI benefits. This bill is necessary because, in the real world, workers between jobs still face mortgage or rent payments, utility bills, and other expenses necessary to support themselves and their families in addition to health insurance costs. Many lack a source of income and have exhausted family savings and other resources during the period of unemployment. And unemployment insurance in most states barely pays enough to cover rent and food--the average monthly UI benefit was only $692 in 1993. In today's increasingly turbulent economy, a secure job is difficult to find. This year in Massachusetts, for example, such major corporations as Digital, Raytheon, and Fleet Bank have laid off hundreds of workers. And over the last few years, most of the major hospitals in my State have significantly downsized their work force. This bill will help workers as they move to new jobs. I want to squarely address the issue of the cost of this program. The administration has estimated the annual cost to be approximately $2 billion. But I want to make clear that we are committed to fully offsetting the cost with other budget components. I am heartened that President Clinton was able to support establishing such a program in the context of his fiscal year 1997 balanced budget request. Senator Kennedy has described two corporate loopholes we propose to close. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to identifying a budget offset that is acceptable to my colleagues for this important program. As Senator Kennedy said, this plan will not add to the deficit, does not impose additional burdens on employers, and is not an unfunded mandate on States. I look forward to working with the administration and my colleagues to refine this bill and to pass it in the 105th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on the night of September 24, the Senate very quickly took up and passed by unanimous consent the Veterans Administration/Housing and Urban Development/Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 1997. Because it was not possible for me to comment on the bill at that time, I would like to do so today. Mr. President, there is much to commend this bill, but there are a few glaring faults. I will focus first on the positive features. Part of the good news is that the bill provides level funding for the HOME and CDBG programs. These are two of HUD's model programs that provide an appropriate mix of local flexibility within federal priorities. I am also particularly pleased that the final conference agreement includes a provision that I sponsored in the Senate with Senator Dominici to provide $50 million for vouchers for disabled individuals. These vouchers are a critical housing resource for those disabled people who are affected when public housing authorities designate certain buildings for elderly residents only when those buildings used to be available also to nonelderly disabled individuals. I thank the Chairman and the Ranking Member for including this provision in the final agreement. The mental health parity provisions the Senate added by floor amendment were included in this bill, and I congratulate Senators Dominici and Wellstone, who initially proposed this legislation, for their efforts. Many health plans now impose lifetime limits of $50,000 and annual caps of $10,000 for treatment of mental illness--far lower than comparable limits for physical treatments in most insurance policies. The mental health parity provision will require greater equality between the lifetime and annual limits for mental health coverage and the limits for physical health coverage. Millions of American families will now be able to get the therapy and other mental health treatment they need. Mr. President, we have taken another very important step in this bill by including Senator Bradley's legislation to ban ``drive through deliveries.'' Health insurers will now be required to allow mothers and their newborns to remain in the hospital for a minimum of 48 hours after a normal vaginal delivery and 96 hours after a Caesarean section. By taking the decision of how long to stay in the hospital out of the hands of insurance companies and placing it in the hands of health care providers and mothers who have just given birth, we will have healthier babies during their first days and we will give the mothers the help and security they deserve. Mr. President, I am also pleased that my colleagues have chosen to place the needs of children suffering from spina bifida, a serious neural tube defect, ahead of partisan politics. This conference report contains the Agent Orange Benefits Amendment, which extends health care and related benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs to children of Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida. In March, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report citing new evidence supporting the link between exposure of service men and women who served in Vietnam to Agent Orange, the chemical defoliant sprayed over much of Vietnam, and the occurrence of spina bifida in their children. Mr. President, we in the Senate are legislators, not scientists. I believe it is entirely appropriate for us to accept the Academy's recommendations regarding the effects of Agent Orange as we did when we unanimously passed the Agent Orange Act of 1991, which I coauthored. The NAS has published its conclusions and President Clinton and Secretary of Veterans Affairs Jesse Brown both have asked that the Department of Veterans Affairs be given the authority to provide care for the children of Vietnam Veterans who suffer from spina bifida. I am proud that this legislation which I offered with Senators Tom Daschle and John D. Rockefeller IV provides that necessary authority. By passing this legislation, we take another definitive step forward in repaying our debt to those who have honorably served their country and are still suffering as a result of their service in Vietnam many years ago. I am hopeful that the families in Massachusetts who will benefit from this legislation, as well as the families around the country, will find some comfort--knowing that their children will be guaranteed special care to address their specific needs. Mr. President, I am also pleased that the appropriators have met the housing needs of people living with AIDS. The Housing Opportunities for People With AIDS (HOPWA) program is a vital component in our national response to the HIV-epidemic. As people with HIV-disease are living longer, services they require become more acute and public resources more strained. My colleagues know how important this program is to me and the city of Boston: I urged the appropriators to increase the HOPWA account by $25 million in order to provide housing for thousands of individuals and families who currently need shelter. The conferees responded favorably and increased the funding for HOPWA for FY 1997 to $196 million. It is necessary that I also address the deficiencies in the bill, and I regret to say that there are several that are quite serious. The most distressing of these faults is the Republican effort to continue to reduce the federal assistance to clean up Boston Harbor. The VA/HUD conference report contains just $40 million of the $100 million requested by the President for fiscal year 1997. Senator Kennedy and I have fought to retain the President's level during the appropriations process. Regrettably, the Republican-controlled House included funding for only half of this amount and the Republicans in the Senate refused to approve any funding for this worthy environmental protection program. The conference settled on the $40 million figure. Believe it is in the national interest for the federal government to provide direct assistance to the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) for the Boston Harbor project. It is a massive undertaking which will provide water and sewer services to over 2.5 million people in 61 communities with a total cost, including the combined sewer overflow (CSO) and capital cost improvements, of more than $5 billion. The sewage treatment plant is being built under a federal court-ordered schedule that requires completion by 1999. Mr. President, as many of my colleagues are well aware, when the Clean Water Act was originally enacted, Congress acknowledged the great importance of the federal role in cleaning the water we drink and use for so many other purposes. It did so by providing federal support equaling 50 to 90 percent of the costs of projects on the scale of the Boston Harbor project. The goals of the federal Clean Water Act are laudable and the environmental benefits to Boston Harbor from the initial water infrastructure improvements are already being felt in the surrounding Bay area. However, while the goals and standards of the Clean Water Act have remained and should continue to remain intact, over the past 15 years we have seen the federal assistance for large water infrastructure projects decline. In the case of the Boston Harbor project, the share of the secondary sewerage treatment project costs to date that have been paid with federal funds is less then twenty percent, and this excludes the CSO and other improvements that will be required in the future. Cleaning up Boston Harbor has been and should continue to be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, during the 104th Congress, it has turned into a partisan issue where the Democrats in Congress and the President are continuing to fight to protect the environment and the Republicans in the House and Senate are playing political games at the expense of the citizens of Massachusetts. During the House-Senate conference on the VA/HUD bill, the Republicans would not yield to efforts of the White House and Congressional Democrats to support the full $100 million funding request. With much urging by the Democratic conferees, the Republicans yielded to $40 million. Senator Mikulski made one final effort to add back funding to reach the level appropriated in last year's budget: $50 million. That amendment was defeated on a party-line vote. I thank the President and my colleagues in the House and Senate, in particular Senator Mikulski and Congressmen Obey and Stokes, for their support during the conference. I greatly regret that Republicans killed the deal. Mr. President, this bill also continues to underfund HUD and many of its key housing programs. There are more than 5 million Americans with severe housing needs. We are not doing enough to meet the housing and service needs of the homeless, the elderly, and the disabled. Moreover, I am concerned that the strict budget for HUD exposes the federal government to future liabilities if our payments for existing developments fail to provide for adequate maintenance or cuts in staffing lead to inadequate monitoring. It is very clear that the appropriations for core HUD programs like public housing operating subsidies, public housing modernization, homeless assistance, and incremental Section 8 assistance are inadequate. The funding decision with respect to the low-income housing preservation program is one of my greatest disappointments in the bill. I cosponsored a successful amendment in the Senate with Senators Craig, Moseley-Braun, Sarbanes, and Murray to provide $500 million for this program. Then I joined my distinguished colleague, Senator Larry Craig, in sending a letter to the conferees requesting at least $900 million for the program. We were joined by 10 other members of the Senate from both sides of the aisle. Instead, the conference committee provided only $350 million for the preservation program. After setting aside $100 million for vouchers and $75 million for projects affected by special problems, only $175 million remains for sales to residents and resident-supported nonprofits. This is stunning given a queue of projects awaiting funding with funding needs totaling over $900 million. Thousands of residents around the country have been working closely with nonprofits over several years to organize and to assemble financial packages to purchase these buildings. This bill dashes the hopes of many who have worked hard to preserve this housing and to empower its residents. The conference committee also imposed new cost caps on preservation projects even though these projects already have HUD-approved plans of action. While the Congress should continue to consider reforms to the program to reduce its cost, changing the rules for projects that have reached this stage of processing is unfair. We have seen no analysis assessing the impact of the cost caps or comparing this approach to other alternatives. I believe that the Secretary should exercise the discretion granted him in the legislation to provide waivers to the cost caps as necessary to preserve affordable housing. Further, I strongly urge the Department of Housing and Urban Development to consider the discretion it has within the appropriations language to fund as many of the developments awaiting sale as possible. There is strong evidence that the Department will not need anywhere near the entire $100 million for vouchers, for example. It should, therefore, make a large portion of the voucher amount available for sales early in the year. Likewise, the Administration should strongly consider using other legal authorities it has to recapture prior year funds and other balances available for sales under this program. The mission of this program--preserving affordable housing--is vital. Mr. President, I also want to express my regret that the conference agreement did not follow the wisdom of the Senate in the funding level for the Youthbuild program. Although $30 million is provided, which is $10 million more than in fiscal year 1996, the Senate this year provided $40 million. The higher level was warranted by Youthbuild's proven success in giving young adults in our inner cities a chance to make something of their lives, while simultaneously adding to the low income housing stock in our cities. I do want to commend the Senate appropriations for including $40 million in the Senate bill, and especially Ranking Member Barbara Mikulski for her assistance in this effort. I also would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Ms. Dorothy Stoneman, the founder and President of Youthbuild USA, who was recently awarded the prestigious MacArthur Foundation award in recognition of her long fight to improve the lives of youths on the margins of poor communities. It is richly-deserved recognition of her work and commitment. Mr. President, that is the good, the bad and the ugly of this legislation. There are many Americans who will be helped greatly by this bill, but it leaves out many others. It evidences vision in some respects, but myopia in others. And with respect to the latter, I plan to devote myself to correcting the bill's inequities when the 105th Congress convenes next year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I will support the President in his veto of the late-term abortion bill. But I want to make several points about this debate. Mr. President, this bill does not clearly define which procedures would be banned because the term ``partial birth'' is not a medical term. The bill defines ``partial birth'' abortion as ``an abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living fetus before killing the fetus and completing the delivery.'' This vague definition in the bill would, for the first time, impose limits on the Roe versus Wade right of a woman to choose an abortion. This language easily could be interpreted to ban other medical procedures used in the second trimester which are--and should remain-- completely legal. The bill would also ban procedures used in the third trimester to save the health or future fertility of the mother. This would overturn the Supreme Court ruling in Roe versus Wade that states in the third trimester can ban abortion procedures except those saving the life or protecting the health of the mother. Mr. President, I am personally opposed to abortion in the third trimester--except when the life or health of the woman is at risk. But that is the law of the land today. There is no question that late-term abortion procedures are gruesome. But this procedure is considered safer and less traumatic in some cases than alternative late-term procedures. The bill that I voted against and the President vetoed failed to provide exceptions for cases in which a woman's health or future fertility are at risk. To ban a medical procedure that a trained physician concludes will best preserve a woman's chance to have a healthy pregnancy in the future is wrong. Mr. President, there are only 600 third-term abortions performed in the entire country each year, according to the best statistics we have available from the Alan Guttmacher Institute. In fact, there are only two doctors in the entire United States, located in Colorado and Kansas, who are known to perform abortions during the last 3 months of pregnancy. In April, President Clinton was joined by five women who had required late-term abortions. One of them described the serious risks to her health that she faced before she had the abortion: ``Our little boy had . . . hydrocephaly. All the doctors told us there was no hope. We asked about in utero surgery, about shunts to remove the fluid, but there was absolutely nothing we could do. I cannot express the pain we still feel.'' But she went on to say that having the late-term abortion ``was not our choice, for not only was our son going to die, but the complications of the pregnancy put my health in danger as well.'' In the haste of some in this chamber to substitute their medical judgement for that of licenced physicians, it appears to me that the anguished circumstances of women such as this and their families are being cavalierly shoved aside. I support Roe versus Wade's ban of third trimester abortions except where a woman faces real, serious risks to her health. Although there is no evidence that this procedure is used in situations where a woman's health is not seriously at risk, I oppose this procedure if used in circumstances that do not meet that standard and would support appropriate legislation to ban them. At the same time, I believe it would be unacceptable to ban a procedure which competent medical doctors in some cases conclude represents the best hope for a woman to avoid serious risks to her health. I will uphold the President's veto of this bill. I believe that it would be a major mistake for the Federal Government to try to practice medicine in order to make an ideological point. Trained doctors, after consulting with their patients, should make these decisions. I urge my colleagues to support the President on this difficult issue.

Mr. KERRY

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 7 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. Mr. President, 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 which I did not support in the recently passed welfare reform bill which cuts the title XX social services block grant by 15 percent. Many States currently use this 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. This would result in more than 5,000 families in Massachusetts alone receiving child care help. 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 is valued and supported.

Mr. KERRY

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 7 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. Mr. President, 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 which I did not support in the recently passed welfare reform bill which cuts the title XX social services block grant by 15 percent. Many States currently use this 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. This would result in more than 5,000 families in Massachusetts alone receiving child care help. 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 is valued and supported.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his comments. It is my hope that both God and some other voters will help me be back here to work with him. Let me just say, Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his comments about our joint work. It has been a great privilege working with the Senator from Alaska and his staff in an effort to try to move this very important piece of legislation. I think it is fair to say--and I know the Senator from Alaska will join me in this--a lot of countries around the world were waiting to see how the United States was going to respond to its crisis of dealing with its fishing stocks and the protection of our available fishing grounds from the waters off Alaska to the waters south all the way to San Diego, the tuna fleet, all through the gulf coast, the Gulf of Mexico, around to Florida all the way up to Charleston, SC, North Carolina, New York, New Jersey, to Maine. We have had different interests that have been tugging within this bill. We have commercial fishermen tugging against recreational fishermen. This is a $50 billion a year industry to the United States on the commercial side and it is a $7 billion industry with respect to the recreational side. There are enormous pressures by that monetary interest to continue to deplete. But this is a finite resource, and we have to manage it. Other countries are wrestling with this. Great Britain is doing a buyout. Iceland, Russia, other nations, Norway, all of them have implemented particular environmental concerns. What we did here today was important to say that we are going to be a leader in that international effort and that we are serious. I join the Senator from Alaska in saying that this must work. If it does not, we will come back with tougher measures in order to guarantee that the stocks are able to replenish and that fishing is an ongoing effort. I simply repeat what I said yesterday. This is not a signal of an end to fishing nor even the downturn. If we do our job properly and if the management councils do their jobs properly, 300,000 new jobs can be created. This can be a growth industry for the United States of America. That is our goal. I want to thank the Senator from Louisiana for his continued and ever-present counsel and assistance in these efforts. He understands the issues as well as any person in the Senate, and his help has been instrumental in building the consensus that we brought here today. I yield the remainder of the time to the Senator from Louisiana.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time remains on the 10 minutes allotted?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it was my understanding that request would be notwithstanding the previous unanimous consent request regarding 10 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleague in expressing gratitude for the bipartisan effort to bring forth this bill. As Senator Stevens said yesterday, this is the most important conservation measure we will pass in this session, and I am grateful we are able to do it in a bipartisan way. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996. The American people have every right to expect their Government to protect their health and safety, and take swift action against those who choose to do harm. Our bill would strengthen efforts to ensure a safer, cleaner environment for the future and would enhance the Federal-State-local government partnership in fighting environmental crimes. This administration has the strongest record in taking action against intransigent polluters, and it has collected among the biggest fines levied on those polluters in American history. However, for too long, many industrial polluters have gone largely unchecked and have consistently evaded responsibility for the severe damage they have done to our environment. I would like to review quickly some of the more important provisions contained in our legislation. One of the ground-breaking measures contained in this legislation is the provision amending existing environmental statutes to define the attempt to commit an offense as a crime, subject to the penalties of the offense itself. This makes environmental law consistent with other Federal criminal statutes. With only one exception, attempting to commit an environmental crime is itself not a Federal crime. It is this area of law enforcement that would greatly benefit from such provisions, which would in turn have the effect of better protecting the public's health and safety and our environment. Furthermore, this provision closes the gap between prosecution and environmental protection. In the past, law enforcement officials could not prosecute violators of environmental law until the crime was committed, causing damage to the environment and jeopardizing public health and safety. Now, would-be wrong-doers can be stopped and prosecuted before they do harm. Let me provide you with a good example of how this would work, using a hypothetical case of hazardous waste dumping. While haulers are required by law to dispose of toxic materials in a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility, often renegade transporters dump in vacant lots, remote areas, and other unauthorized locales. Once they have received information that illegal dumping is occurring, Federal agents conduct surveillance of hazardous waste transporters. But, because there is no attempt provision in statutes defining environmental crimes, if agents prevent a transporter from dumping hazardous waste, the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted for illegal dumping because no environmental crime has occurred. Under current law, only by damaging the environment by allowing the hazardous waste dumping to occur, can the Government build a case to prosecute a person for illegal dumping. This does not make sense and we must change these laws. This provision adds a new dimension to the protection of the environment: the capability of officials to engage in undercover operations. These investigations will allow Federal officials to conduct ``sting'' operations by substituting benign substances for the actual pollutants, and prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, those violators who engaged in behavior they know to be illegal. Another provision, and arguably the most important for cleaning up the environment in a fiscally responsible way, is the authority granted to Federal district courts to order convicted criminals to reimburse States, localities, and tribes for costs they incur during Federal environmental prosecutions. These recovered costs will be used exclusively for funding the enhancement of environmental law enforcement required in this bill. Greater protection is also given to the first line of defense in many environmental crime scenes: police, firefighters, and public health personnel. This measure will strengthen the existing penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Community Right-to-Know Act, Superfund, the Marine Sanctuaries Act, and other key environmental statutes. Our legislation also addresses the increasing need for additional training of law enforcement personnel. In response to the urgent requests of State, local, and tribal authorities, the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act would establish, under the Environmental Protection Agency, a separate program for environmental crimes investigations. In addition, the act limits the effect of the affirmative acts of concealment that violators commit to prevent prosecution during the current statute of limitations for environmental crimes, which is 5 years. This bill extends the limitations period for up to 3 years beyond the traditional 5 years for cases in which the defendant deliberately conceals the original infraction. This bill also adds environmental crimes to the list of statutes that provide for restitution to victims, such as violent and economic crime. The act recognizes that longstanding and widespread damage, in addition to the physical injuries and financial losses, may be caused by an environmental crime. The restitution provision includes the costs of removal and remediation of pollution and the necessary restoration of the environment. Finally, the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act would authorize prosecutors to seize the assets of environmental criminals before conviction so that the defendant retains sufficient assets to make reparations. This measure ensures that environmental criminals cannot hide behind bankruptcy, or hide their assets so that the Government bears the burden of the cost of repairs. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that although this legislation is long overdue, the effects of it will be far-reaching. This issue is not only about the environment, it is about fiscal responsibility and taking responsibility for one's actions. This bill does not propose newer, stricter regulations, it does not call for any burdensome Federal mandates; it merely closes loopholes through which polluters have slipped for many years. Furthermore, it reduces the burden placed of Government to pay for environmental clean-ups and places it firmly on the shoulders of the criminals, where it belongs. Once again, I complement the leadership of the Senator from New Jersey. It was a pleasure working together to develop this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to pass it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to introduce today with my good friend Senator Lautenberg the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act of 1996. The American people have every right to expect their Government to protect their health and safety, and take swift action against those who choose to do harm. Our bill would strengthen efforts to ensure a safer, cleaner environment for the future and would enhance the Federal-State-local government partnership in fighting environmental crimes. This administration has the strongest record in taking action against intransigent polluters, and it has collected among the biggest fines levied on those polluters in American history. However, for too long, many industrial polluters have gone largely unchecked and have consistently evaded responsibility for the severe damage they have done to our environment. I would like to review quickly some of the more important provisions contained in our legislation. One of the ground-breaking measures contained in this legislation is the provision amending existing environmental statutes to define the attempt to commit an offense as a crime, subject to the penalties of the offense itself. This makes environmental law consistent with other Federal criminal statutes. With only one exception, attempting to commit an environmental crime is itself not a Federal crime. It is this area of law enforcement that would greatly benefit from such provisions, which would in turn have the effect of better protecting the public's health and safety and our environment. Furthermore, this provision closes the gap between prosecution and environmental protection. In the past, law enforcement officials could not prosecute violators of environmental law until the crime was committed, causing damage to the environment and jeopardizing public health and safety. Now, would-be wrong-doers can be stopped and prosecuted before they do harm. Let me provide you with a good example of how this would work, using a hypothetical case of hazardous waste dumping. While haulers are required by law to dispose of toxic materials in a permitted hazardous waste disposal facility, often renegade transporters dump in vacant lots, remote areas, and other unauthorized locales. Once they have received information that illegal dumping is occurring, Federal agents conduct surveillance of hazardous waste transporters. But, because there is no attempt provision in statutes defining environmental crimes, if agents prevent a transporter from dumping hazardous waste, the perpetrator cannot be prosecuted for illegal dumping because no environmental crime has occurred. Under current law, only by damaging the environment by allowing the hazardous waste dumping to occur, can the Government build a case to prosecute a person for illegal dumping. This does not make sense and we must change these laws. This provision adds a new dimension to the protection of the environment: the capability of officials to engage in undercover operations. These investigations will allow Federal officials to conduct ``sting'' operations by substituting benign substances for the actual pollutants, and prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law, those violators who engaged in behavior they know to be illegal. Another provision, and arguably the most important for cleaning up the environment in a fiscally responsible way, is the authority granted to Federal district courts to order convicted criminals to reimburse States, localities, and tribes for costs they incur during Federal environmental prosecutions. These recovered costs will be used exclusively for funding the enhancement of environmental law enforcement required in this bill. Greater protection is also given to the first line of defense in many environmental crime scenes: police, firefighters, and public health personnel. This measure will strengthen the existing penalties for violations of the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the Community Right-to-Know Act, Superfund, the Marine Sanctuaries Act, and other key environmental statutes. Our legislation also addresses the increasing need for additional training of law enforcement personnel. In response to the urgent requests of State, local, and tribal authorities, the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act would establish, under the Environmental Protection Agency, a separate program for environmental crimes investigations. In addition, the act limits the effect of the affirmative acts of concealment that violators commit to prevent prosecution during the current statute of limitations for environmental crimes, which is 5 years. This bill extends the limitations period for up to 3 years beyond the traditional 5 years for cases in which the defendant deliberately conceals the original infraction. This bill also adds environmental crimes to the list of statutes that provide for restitution to victims, such as violent and economic crime. The act recognizes that longstanding and widespread damage, in addition to the physical injuries and financial losses, may be caused by an environmental crime. The restitution provision includes the costs of removal and remediation of pollution and the necessary restoration of the environment. Finally, the Environmental Crimes and Enforcement Act would authorize prosecutors to seize the assets of environmental criminals before conviction so that the defendant retains sufficient assets to make reparations. This measure ensures that environmental criminals cannot hide behind bankruptcy, or hide their assets so that the Government bears the burden of the cost of repairs. Let me conclude, Mr. President, by saying that although this legislation is long overdue, the effects of it will be far-reaching. This issue is not only about the environment, it is about fiscal responsibility and taking responsibility for one's actions. This bill does not propose newer, stricter regulations, it does not call for any burdensome Federal mandates; it merely closes loopholes through which polluters have slipped for many years. Furthermore, it reduces the burden placed of Government to pay for environmental clean-ups and places it firmly on the shoulders of the criminals, where it belongs. Once again, I complement the leadership of the Senator from New Jersey. It was a pleasure working together to develop this legislation, and I look forward to working with him to pass it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I have.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 2 minutes for each side tomorrow prior to a vote, if there is to be a vote, in order to explain both positions.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obviously, the purpose of the agreement which we entered into previously was to set aside time tonight for the purposes of debate. And it is my understanding, the majority leader said there would be no debate tomorrow, there would only be votes. I think it is fair to allow both sides 2 minutes, but I would be adverse to opening it up to a whole process of debate tomorrow. I mean, if they reach agreement, then there is no need for debate. If they do not reach agreement, then it is going to take a very quick explanation of the two sides because both managers are going to be opposing this. I do not think we ought to open it up for a lengthy period.

Mr. KERRY. Two minutes on each side.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, but I do want to request a time agreement with respect to----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have no objection.