John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Maine for her efforts. As she knows, we had a number of issues for a number of different Senators. But I think she has gone a long way in helping to get resolved any of those issues, and we are delighted to accept the amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 6 minutes to the Senator from Oregon.

Mr. KERRY. The Senator from Oregon requests how much time?

Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, in addition to the time allotted to both sides, the Senators from Washington be allowed to speak: Senator Gorton for 15 minutes and Senator Murray for 10 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. How much time does Senator Murray need?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in order to keep an agreement here so we can know the time, I ask how much time the Senator from Washington needs.

Mr. KERRY. Are we divided equally?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, are we under controlled time?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Alaska not just for his comments but I particularly thank him for the great personal friendship that we have built over the course of these years working together on this and also for the great bipartisan approach to this. This is tough legislation. There are enormous competing interests all across this country--sport fishermen, commercial fishermen, 15 different kinds of commercial fishermen in one particular area, all of them tugging at each other, a huge amount of vendors and others with interests to each of those fishermen, processors, foreign export involvement. The competing interests are as broad and as complicated as almost any that I have confronted in the course of my time in the Senate, perhaps with the exception of the Clean Air Act or something that similarly brings every part of the country against another. I think the distinguished Senator from Alaska has done a terrific job of helping to build that bipartisan effort here. We started out 4 years ago when I was chairman of the subcommittee, and at that time we held hearings in various parts of the country. At the time that the Senate switched control this bill basically stayed the same. The names switched, Senator Stevens took over the subcommittee, but we continued to work in the same bipartisan way, and I think it is a tribute to his efforts and to Senator Hollings' efforts as the ranking member of the full committee that we are now able to be here and able to proceed. It is with great satisfaction that I am able to commend to my colleagues this piece of legislation which is appropriately called the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. It is without question the most important rewrite of our fishing laws, the Federal fishing laws since 1976 when the Magnuson Fisheries and Conservation Management Act was enacted, and at that time as many remember we Americanized the fisheries within 200 miles of our shore. We reached out and said we are going to try to manage that 200-mile coastline better. It has been a long time in coming, but this bill is going to result in a significantly improved regime for the management of the Nation's marine fishery resources. These amendments improve and strengthen the standards upon which the current management regime is based, and it enables us to further enhance our capacity to be able to restore and maintain healthy and sustainable fisheries. The amendments that are offered in this bill were developed in conjunction with and for the most part supported by a diverse representation of groups, all of them with an interest in the marine fisheries including the commercial and recreational fishermen, the environmental community, coastal communities, and States. In recent months we have all read many editorials that have been building up support around the country for the passage of this bill. I will share a quick piece from my hometown newspaper, the Boston Globe which wrote that ``Before U.S. Senators go home . . . they have an obligation to complete legislation extending the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the foundation for rescuing America's troubled fishing industry.'' Enactment of S. 39 is critical if we are going to put our fisheries back onto a sustainable path and literally avert an environmental catastrophe on a national level. Of the 157 fishery resources for which the National Marine Fisheries Service manages, 36 percent--51 different stocks--are overfished; 44 percent or 69 stocks are fully harvested, and 20 percent are underutilized. The main point illustrated by these figures is that many of the fishery resources that have provided the greatest economic benefit to fishermen and to this Nation are just simply overfished or approaching the overfished level. This situation is being exacerbated by the demands of a population with an increasing appetite for eating fish. The net effect has been that we have too many fishermen chasing too few fish. We are precariously close to fisheries failures in many of our most commercially important fish stocks, and it is imperative that we take immediate action if we are to avert disasters such as the one that we are currently experiencing, literally living in, off the waters of New England. S. 39 provides guidance and the tools necessary to help ensure that fishery failures will be avoided and the fish stocks can be rebuilt to provide the greatest possible economic benefit to our Nation. As I mentioned earlier, this bill came neither easily nor quickly. It is the result of 4 years of work, the subject of 15 hearings and countless staff hours and meetings among Senators and interested parties. I commend all of those parties for the fact that we are now on the floor, able to pass this legislation, as I am confident we will in a matter of hours. I would like to point out that, from the start, it has been the willingness to be bipartisan that has brought all of us to this point, and I think that is a tribute to the way in which the Senate can work when people set their minds to it. It has been my sense that Senator Stevens' own commitment to this obviously came out of the fact, which many may not realize, that he was one of the original crafters of the Magnuson bill when it was first passed in 1976. He has had a long-time commitment to achieving this. Obviously, because he represents the State of Alaska, he has enormous interests in what we are doing here today. I also would like to express my gratitude to Senators Gorton and Murray for their recognition of the importance of this bill and the benefit that it holds out to our Nation as a whole. Fishery issues rarely lend themselves to unanimous agreement, as both Senator Stevens and I have described, and the scope and breadth of the changes that are offered in this bill are such that the competing interest groups have had to fight fiercely to try to reach accommodation and compromise. The Senators from Washington have, quite rightly, represented the interests of their State. That is what they are supposed to do and that is how we are supposed to work through this process. I commend both of them for having done that diligently and tenaciously in this effort. But in the end, it is our final responsibility to balance all of the parochial interests with the interests of the Nation as a whole. I believe that, while there may be parts of this bill which may not provide the full level of benefits that one particular group or another may want, in the end this bill provides an overall benefit and balance to the Nation that greatly exceeds the sum of its parts. Fishing has been and continues to be an extraordinarily important part of this Nation's heritage. We know that very, very well in Massachusetts, in New Hampshire--the Chair's State--in Maine, and all down our coastline. Since the first settlers came to this country, we have been dependent on the sea. We have, however, found that as Federal data on the overutilization of fish stocks has increased, we now understand there is a growing problem in the management of these resources. That growing problem threatens the sustainability of these recreationally and commercially valuable resources. So, before I elaborate on the benefits of S. 39, I would just like to highlight for a moment the economic asset that the fishing industry carries to this country. Directly or indirectly, the seafood industry contributes nearly $50 billion annually to the U.S. economy. According to data for 1994, U.S. commercial fishermen landed 10.5 billion pounds of fish and seafood products, producing a record $3.8 billion in dockside revenues. By weight of catch, we are now the world's fifth leading fishing nation, and the United States is also the world's top seafood exporter, with exports valued at $7.4 billion. Millions of salt water anglers have turned marine recreational fisheries into a multimillion dollar industry that caught an estimated 361.9 million fish--that includes those caught and released alive--and an estimated 66.1 million fishing trips; an extraordinary amount of activity. As an economic asset, recreational fisheries and related industries generate over $7 billion annually to our economy. In New England, we have, tragically, become all too familiar with the downside of all of this. We have seen the collapse of the cod and the haddock fisheries. It has come about principally because of overfishing and, as a result of that overfishing, our fishermen have fallen on hard times. In 1992, overfishing was estimated to cost Massachusetts alone about 88 million pounds of groundfish harvests worth at least $193 million annually. For all of New England, annual losses total at least $350 million and 14,000 jobs. While we do not have specific numbers for New England, at the national level the Department of Commerce estimates that rebuilding our fisheries to a more productive level could create 300,000 new jobs and billions of dollars in additional revenues. So, I want to emphasize what we are doing here today is not the signal of the end of the fishing era, it is not the signal of a continuing decline in fisheries; it is our effort to guarantee that there is a growth industry, that there is an industry for the future. I repeat, the national estimates are, if we do this properly, we can create 300,000 new jobs, billions of dollars of additional revenue, and we can have sustainable fisheries for generations to come. The testimony of Nantucket fisherman Capt. Mark Simonitsch at a hearing I held in New Bedford summarizes the cost of overfishing very, very well. Let me just share his words. He said: You sit there and you think over the years that, if you can finally pay your mortgage off, that the money is all going to go into your pocket. This year, I've yet to catch 50,000 pounds of fish. I have lost thousands of dollars. And my crew has made so little, a crew that has been with me, believe it or not, for 17 years, they may not come back next year. So I have chosen today to talk about solving the hard problem, Senator, and that's getting fish back. That statement was from a Massachusetts fishing captain who called this crisis to the attention of all of us. The Sustainable Fisheries Act goes a long way toward solving the problem of getting the fish back. In addition, the bill calls for monitoring the health of fisheries and limits on harvests to prevent overfishing from recurring. To quote Captain Simonitsch again, he said it's time to stop ``all this wheelhouse thinking and tire kicking'' and get the bill enacted. The bill also continues my fight for assistance to New England fishermen, extending Federal authority for fisheries disaster relief and authorizing vessel and permit buyout programs to reduce excess fishing capacity and pressure on the fishing industry itself. In addition to preventing overfishing, the Sustainable Fisheries Act calls for action to address two other important environmental concerns--reducing bycatch and waste, and protecting fish habitat. As the director of the New England Aquarium pointed out in a recent letter: At least 20 percent of our total fishery catch is thrown overboard dead or dying. In 1994, the U.S. fishing fleet off Alaska dumped a staggering 750 million pounds of bycatch, more fish [was dumped overboard and thrown away] than was caught by the entire New England fleet last year. The letter goes on to say: The greatest long-term threat to the viability of our nation's marine resources could be the continuing loss and degradation of coastal marine habitat. Louisiana alone has lost half a million acres of wetland since the mid-1950's. The National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that $200 million is lost annually in reduced catches due to ongoing habitat loss. As all of us know, if you destroy the habitat, you destroy the nurseries and you destroy the ecosystem on which those nurseries are dependent, which then diminishes the ability to have a sustainable fishery. We need to understand the linkage of those wetlands and the role they play in the spawning of fish and of the ecosystem to the total catch that will ultimately be available. I might add that a couple of years ago, the Senator from Alaska and I took steps through the United Nations to end driftnet fishing. Driftnets, 30,000 miles of monofilament nets were being laid out at night in the northwest Pacific. These nets would break off and fish on their own. They would be what are called phantom nets or ghost fisheries where they would float to the surface as plastic and trap fish, mostly salmon coming out of the Columbia River, and they would sink to the bottom where the scavengers would eat the carcasses until it was light enough and drift some more. There are still some individuals in certain nations who are continuing this outlawed practice of driftnet fishing. That is the kind of example of protection we need to be involved with to deal with the concerns of habitat and of bycatch and waste. This bill would require the fishery management plans to assess bycatch levels in each fishery and take steps to minimize the bycatch and the mortality of bycatch which cannot be avoided. In addition, fishery managers are required under this bill to identify essential fish habitat and to minimize the adverse effects on habitat due to fishing. In summary, Mr. President, the bill before us addresses many of the problems affecting the management of our fisheries and provides essential tools to reversing the damaging trends that I have outlined. Our Nation's fisheries are literally at a crossroads, and significant action is required to remedy our marine resource management problems and preserve the way of life of our coastal communities. I believe that this bill goes a long way toward solving the hard problems and providing help for fishermen and coastal communities during the difficult rebuilding period. The opportunity to fish and to have fish on the dinner table is something that many Americans have simply taken for granted in the past. But unless we take the steps that are set forth in this bill to ensure that these vital resources are conserved, they will not be there for future generations. This is a vital bill. It is a good bill for the environment, as Senator Stevens said, and I share the view it is the most important environmental legislation that we will pass in this session. It is good for fishermen, it is good for economic welfare of this Nation, and I remain committed to the goal that fishing will continue to be a part, an essential part, of the culture of our coastal communities of the United States and of Massachusetts and of our economies. It is that important, and it means that much Finally, Mr. President, I would just like to say that there has been an extraordinary effort by both the majority staff and the minority staff who have labored literally for years, but particularly in the last few months, and an extraordinary amount of time has been put into developing this bill. I would like to thank, on the Democratic side, Penny Dalton, Lila Helms, and Kate English, who each have done just a tremendous job. On the Republican side, I would like to thank Trevor McCabe, Earl Comstock, and Tom Melius. And during the past 2 years there have been a number of people on my staff who have served as legislative fellows on my staff or on the Commerce Committee and who have put in an enormous amount of time and energy to make this bill possible. Particularly I would like to thank Steve Metruck, Alex Elkan, Peter Hill, and Tom Richey for their contribution to this legislation. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to commend the leadership of my colleagues from Oregon and New Jersey, Senators Hatfield and Lautenberg, for their key role in bringing this Transportation appropriations bill to this point, which should take it to a White House signature. No bill is ever all that we might like it to be, of course, and this bill is not an exception. Among its disappointments is the fact it does not reverse the troubling course of this Congress towards disinvestment in critical areas of our infrastructure such as passenger rail. Amtrak continues to be underfunded; this bill contains $565 million for Amtrak in fiscal year 1997. This number is simply not sufficient for Amtrak to function effectively and to meet the intercity passenger rail needs of our Nation's rail passengers. We continue, for ideological and other reasons, to insist on inadequately funding Amtrak. The results are already apparent. The difficult cuts in Amtrak service with which we now struggle in central and western Massachusetts and other areas of the country are a direct result of this course. Ironically, as Amtrak is beginning to cut service and eliminate routes, Senators who often oppose Amtrak funding suddenly emerged at a hearing last week as strong proponents of intercity passenger rail service. I hope these Senators will join me next year as I continue to fight for increased funding for Amtrak and to ensure that we have a sufficiently capitalized intercity passenger rail system. In addition, the conference report appropriates only $115 million for the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project. This is another example of the Congress failing to respond to important needs of its citizens. The Northeast corridor is where the greatest proportion of Amtrak's passengers are, and NECIP, therefore, represents the key to Amtrak's future. We cannot continue to attract riders if we do not furnish them with a first class mode of transportation. Those Members who seek to see Amtrak ``whither on the vine,'' in the words of the Speaker of the House, are attempting to achieve this goal by short-funding NECIP. I will continue to fight in the future for sufficient funding of this important project. Before I depart this topic, I want to express my sincere gratitude to Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey, who continues to be one of the best friends that Amtrak has in the Congress. I know that the Senator from New Jersey did all he could to maximize funding for Amtrak in the coming year, and I look forward to working with my friend next year as we continue to fight for Amtrak and our Nation's rail passengers. Senator Lautenberg also sought through this bill to ameliorate the effects of a formula alteration affecting highway funding under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act--or ISTEA. His efforts would have been helpful to Massachusetts and 27 other States who are losers under that alteration. I regret his proposal for a temporary hold harmless was rejected. The result is that this important funding distribution issue will have to be confronted next year when ISTEA reauthorization legislation is considered. As much as I wish the conference report could have provided more adequately for Amtrak and provided the hold harmless for highway funding, I still deeply appreciate the work of Chairman Hatfield and Senator Lautenberg with respect to many other provisions in this bill. This bill makes extremely important commitments to Massachusetts on several projects which form the backbone of intracity and commuter rail traffic in my State, and in these very tight fiscal times, such commitments are all the more important. This bill continues the Federal Government's commitment to the rebuilding of Worcester's historic Union Station, the hub of transportation in that city and, indeed, for all of central Massachusetts. It continues the Federal Government's commitment to the further development of the Gallagher Terminal in Lowell, which has become one of the Nation's most successful intermodal facilities, and a pivot point for commuter traffic among and between the Merrimack Valley, southern New Hampshire, and greater Boston. This bill makes a critical initial commitment to the creation of a true intermodal facility at Springfield's Union Station, which, like Worcester's, will become the focal point for expanded transit in its area--which is the Pioneer Valley. And this bill makes a similar commitment to Cape Cod, which will create a new intermodal center in Hyannis to help the Cape address its need to provide alternative transportation in a region often choked with cars. Finally, this bill continues the government's commitment to the South Boston Piers Transitway Project, on which the city of Boston has rested so much hope and expectation for a renaissance along its waterfront. On another matter, with regard to the Coast Guard budget, I would like to bring attention to the fact that this is the 7th year in a row where the Congress has failed to appropriate for the Coast Guard the amount sought in the President's budget. I am pleased that we came closer than we have the past 6 years, but we still failed to meet the mark. I find this action very troubling when the Coast Guard has been one of the star performers in the administration's efforts to reduce the size of Government and eliminate all excess waste from the budget. Just this past year, the Coast Guard executed, very successfully I might add, a very aggressive internal streamlining effort without commensurate reductions in any of the services that it provides to the American public. The Coast Guard continues to do more with less. With the renewed focus on the war on drugs, the Coast Guard will be one of the lead agencies in our effort to stop drugs from entering our country and ultimately ending up in the hands of people--even children--in our neighborhoods and schools, yet no additional resources are being provided for this purpose, so the Coast Guard will have to absorb the cost of executing this renewed effort. If we want the Coast Guard to continue to provide the services that many Americans have come to take for granted, we must not continue to shoulder it with greater responsibilities and more missions without adequate resources to do the job. We must be vigilant in our obligation to the men and women of our Nation's oldest continuous seagoing service, and the world's premier maritime experts and guardians of the sea. We must ensure that they have what they need to do the job, and to remain ``Semper Paratus'' (always ready). This bill bears the mark of Chairman Hatfield's thoughtful leadership, which we will so sorely miss in the next Senate, and of the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee, Senator Lautenberg, on whose knowledge and leadership on transportation issues I and many of my colleagues have come to depend. We in Massachusetts owe Senator Lautenberg a continuing debt of gratitude, not only for the work he has done in this Congress under very difficult conditions, but for the work he has done for so many years past. Senator Lautenberg understands the needs and priorities of our State and all the Northeastern States, and he understands them almost instinctively. He has been our champion for a fair and equitable approach to Federal transportation policy that supports the economies and the public convenience of every area of this country, including the kind of enormously complex urban areas that we both represent. I want to thank him, once again, for his help with these important matters. It also is fitting that I say thanks to his staff, Peter Rogoff, who consistently has been helpful and accessible to me and my staff. In fact, it is a pleasure to deal with all the staff for this subcommittee, who epitomize the professionalism that enables this institution to get its work done for the American people.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. This bill to reauthorize the Federal Aviation Administration is good legislation. I would like to commend the diligent efforts of several Senators in drafting this legislation and in shepherding it through the committee process--including Senators Ford, McCain, Hollings, and Pressler, and also the work of their capable and helpful staffs. Mr. President, this is a very important bill to our Nation because the FAA plays such a critical role 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. Significantly, 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. This bill is also important to Massachusetts which relies very heavily on air transport for both people and cargo. From Logan Airport in Boston to the smaller airports located throughout Massachusetts, airports and air transport are critical to the economic and social travel needs of the people of Massachusetts. Foremost, I support this bill because it provides the FAA with the necessary tools to carry out these important tasks. S. 1994 provides the FAA with $9.28 billion in total budget authority for fiscal year 1997 which includes $5 billion for operations, $2.28 billion for the airport improvement program, $1.8 billion for facilities and equipment, and $200 million for research, engineering, and development. This total figure represents an increase of $1.13 billion over the FAA's total budget authority for fiscal year 1996 and an increase of $1.07 billion over the administration's budget request. But this bill does more than simply provide funding. In order to improve our civil aviation system, the bill seeks to reform and improve the FAA's operations. The bill affords the FAA a needed measure of autonomy from the larger Department of Transportation. For example, the FAA administrator will have the final authority to accept or reject proposed changes to FAA regulations. This change moves the final word to where it belongs: the agency with the expertise. In addition, the bill places time restrictions on the FAA's ability to act on pleadings from the aviation industry and other interested parties. This change will lend a measure of certainty to the timing of FAA actions and, thereby, make it easier for the industry to forge ahead with business plans that depend on FAA regulatory action. The bill also contains a provision to make sure that smaller airports continue to receive sufficient financial assistance should FAA Federal funding levels decline. Specifically, S. 1994 caps the percentage of funding that can be allocated to large and medium airports. This provision will permit smaller airports, such as those in New Bedford and North Adams, MA, to continue to receive a substantial level of FAA funding. I am pleased to note that the bill does not reverse the FAA's long- standing and sensible policy of permitting multi-modal independent authorities, such as the Massachusetts Port Authority, to function as intended by their enabling statutes. For years, MASSPORT has been permitted to manage a multi-modal transportation system for the Boston region, using revenues from Logan Airport, the Port of Boston, Tobin Bridge, and other activities, to administer the system as a whole. At different times, this has meant that one individual component has subsidized other components that MASSPORT operates. Because the region relies on all components working together, federal law has recognized such subsidies as legitimate and permissible. Indeed, without the authority to merge revenues, the entire transportation infrastructure of the greater Boston region would be thrown into chaos causing disastrous consequences for the region's economy. I want to thank Senator McCain and his staff for working with my staff on this issue so that a compromise could be reached that is acceptable to all parties involved. I also want to recognize the efforts of Minority Counsel Sam Whitehorn for his contributions to the discussions between our offices and the ultimate agreement. I also would like to call the Senate's attention to the FAA's recent decision to award the contract for designing and constructing the next generation of air traffic control systems, known as the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System or STARS, to the Raytheon Co. which is headquartered in Lexington, Massachusetts. The STARS program will provide a complete replacement of critical air traffic control radar displays of aircraft in the ``terminal area''--the airspace within 50 miles of an airport.--The systems in use today are based on outdated technologies and their replacement is absolutely essential to keep up with our Nation's increased air traffic demands. I am proud that this Massachusetts company, known for years to be on the cutting edge of important technological advances, has been given the opportunity to reconstruct our air traffic control systems for the 21st century. I am equally pleased that the location of first implementation is to be Logan Airport. Finally, and importantly, I am very pleased that this bill contains some very important steps toward enhancing airport security 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. At long last, based on the conclusions of the Gore Commission established by President Clinton to address airline security in the aftermath of the TWA crash off Long Island, the FAA will be instructed to move forward in this respect. Rather than awaiting the arrival of a new sensor technology that can meet all desired sensor standards perfectly or nearly perfectly, the FAA will be instructed to procure and implement use of the best currently available technology-- which is the approach taken by virtually all European nations. It is long past time for the United States to take this step. I have addressed this subject at greater length with Chairman Pressler previously during this debate. Mr. President, this is a well crafted bill. I will vote for this bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. Support for FAA Authorization Bill Air Travel Safety and Security Provisions

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his clarification and I voice my strong support for these security provisions.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator from South Dakota if I am correct that the language contained in this bill will result in the speedy deployment of a variety of explosive detection systems that are cost effective, and compatible with realistic operating conditions, such as those systems manufactured by Vivid Technologies, Thermedics Detection, EG&G, IonTrack, and AS&E.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee for moving forward on this important bill and for including provisions that seek to address terrorism and aviation security. I have worked with the chairman on these important provisions for many months. The Gore Commission recommended that the FAA move forward expeditiously with deployment of advanced explosive detection equipment, and this legislation contains provisions to implement that recommendation. For too long our efforts have fixated on finding the perfect technology that will give us a silver bullet against terrorism at our airports. While other countries have deployed explosive detection technology that is commercially available, economically reasonable, and compatible with realistic air carrier operating conditions, our research-oriented approach has resulted in the U.S. deploying nothing, and thus becoming an attractive target for terrorists. It is my understanding that the language in the managers' amendment requires the FAA Administrator to deploy existing, commercially available, and operationally practicable explosive detection devices.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rescue Diver Training Act of 1996. This bill would provide required Congressional authorization for the Coast Guard to expand its current use of Coast Guard divers to form a broader search and rescue mission application. I want to acknowledge my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Gerry Studds, who is the author of the Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer Training Program which this legislation amends and with whom I have worked in developing this legislation which he will introduce in the House. The Coast Guard has used its divers, trained at the Naval Diving School in Panama City, FL, only for salvage operations associated with Coast Guard aids to navigation and ice-breaking missions. This bill would authorize the Coast Guard to develop and implement a program to extend the use of these highly trained divers to search and rescue efforts. Under current search and rescue procedures, the Coast Guard will dispatch a helicopter when a ship is reported to be in distress or a marine accident is reported. When it is anticipated that a diver may be needed to assist in a rescue, the Coast Guard uses contract personnel who usually are volunteer policemen, firemen, or local State marine policemen who have had specialized diver training. A call will be made to secure the services of a diver, and the helicopter will wait to depart until the diver reaches its station, or it will fly to another location to pick up the diver--all before it flies to the rescue scene. This often results in the helicopter being delayed--even if only a few minutes--in reaching the rescue scene. Sometimes no diver is available within a reasonable period of time, in which case the helicopter proceeds to the scene with no diver on board. The program that this legislation will establish is designed both to speed this process in the realization that, in rescue situations, minutes and even seconds can mean life or death--especially in the waters off our northern coasts, and to provide a pool of divers within the Coast Guard. Where a qualified diver is available at a Coast Guard station, a rescue helicopter can load that diver and immediately depart for the rescue situation without any delay. A recent episode in the North Atlantic off Massachusetts amply illustrates how the program this legislation would establish could make a vital contribution. In the early hours of September 5, the fishing vessel Heather Lynne II carrying a crew of three capsized. The rescue helicopter was unable to bring a diver with it because none was available when the emergency call was received. After reaching the site of the capsized vessel, and determining that a diver was needed, the helicopter had to return to the mainland to pick up a diver. A considerable amount of time was lost in this process. The Coast Guard is charged with maintaining constant vigilance--to protect lives and property on our waterways and to enforce our maritime, immigration, antidrug, and other laws. In my judgment, it has performed capably and honorably throughout its history, and Americans should take both considerable pride and comfort in that knowledge. It is the Congress' responsibility to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to perform its missions. This legislation will enhance the service's resources for its search and rescue mission, and increase its ability to save lives and property. All who use our waterways and oceans will be safer as a result. Mr. President, this legislation should be approved by the Congress as soon as possible--I hope it will be this year. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Rescue Diver Training Act of 1996. This bill would provide required Congressional authorization for the Coast Guard to expand its current use of Coast Guard divers to form a broader search and rescue mission application. I want to acknowledge my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Congressman Gerry Studds, who is the author of the Coast Guard Rescue Swimmer Training Program which this legislation amends and with whom I have worked in developing this legislation which he will introduce in the House. The Coast Guard has used its divers, trained at the Naval Diving School in Panama City, FL, only for salvage operations associated with Coast Guard aids to navigation and ice-breaking missions. This bill would authorize the Coast Guard to develop and implement a program to extend the use of these highly trained divers to search and rescue efforts. Under current search and rescue procedures, the Coast Guard will dispatch a helicopter when a ship is reported to be in distress or a marine accident is reported. When it is anticipated that a diver may be needed to assist in a rescue, the Coast Guard uses contract personnel who usually are volunteer policemen, firemen, or local State marine policemen who have had specialized diver training. A call will be made to secure the services of a diver, and the helicopter will wait to depart until the diver reaches its station, or it will fly to another location to pick up the diver--all before it flies to the rescue scene. This often results in the helicopter being delayed--even if only a few minutes--in reaching the rescue scene. Sometimes no diver is available within a reasonable period of time, in which case the helicopter proceeds to the scene with no diver on board. The program that this legislation will establish is designed both to speed this process in the realization that, in rescue situations, minutes and even seconds can mean life or death--especially in the waters off our northern coasts, and to provide a pool of divers within the Coast Guard. Where a qualified diver is available at a Coast Guard station, a rescue helicopter can load that diver and immediately depart for the rescue situation without any delay. A recent episode in the North Atlantic off Massachusetts amply illustrates how the program this legislation would establish could make a vital contribution. In the early hours of September 5, the fishing vessel Heather Lynne II carrying a crew of three capsized. The rescue helicopter was unable to bring a diver with it because none was available when the emergency call was received. After reaching the site of the capsized vessel, and determining that a diver was needed, the helicopter had to return to the mainland to pick up a diver. A considerable amount of time was lost in this process. The Coast Guard is charged with maintaining constant vigilance--to protect lives and property on our waterways and to enforce our maritime, immigration, antidrug, and other laws. In my judgment, it has performed capably and honorably throughout its history, and Americans should take both considerable pride and comfort in that knowledge. It is the Congress' responsibility to provide the Coast Guard with the resources it needs to perform its missions. This legislation will enhance the service's resources for its search and rescue mission, and increase its ability to save lives and property. All who use our waterways and oceans will be safer as a result. Mr. President, this legislation should be approved by the Congress as soon as possible--I hope it will be this year. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was recorded as an ``aye'' on the previous vote. I meant to be recorded as ``nay.'' I ask unanimous consent that I be recorded as a ``nay.'' This would not affect the outcome of the vote.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a tribute to one of Boston's most celebrated local institutions--which is soon to be no more--and to the man who has done so much to make that place the very special corner of town that it is. To running enthusiasts across the Nation, the Eliot Lounge is well known as the unofficial headquarters of the Boston Marathon--a congenial watering hole where the world's elite runners rub elbows, and perhaps down a beer or two, with weekend joggers and others even less athletically inclined. But anyone who has ever dropped by the corner of Massachusetts and Commonwealth Avenues knows that the Eliot is far more than just a runner's tavern. The Eliot is a gathering place, and a welcoming haven, for men and women from all different backgrounds and walks of life: stockbrokers and steam fitters, journalists and office clerks, teachers and police officers and even the occasional politician have all found a warm welcome there. It is a place where old-fashioned hospitality and camaraderie still endure, a place where strangers become old friends with just a few easy words--a neighborhood bar, it's been said, for people who don't necessarily live in the neighborhood. For the better part of two decades now, the camaraderie and good fellowship of the Eliot Lounge have been personified by one man: Tommy Leonard. From his post behind the bar, T.L. has dispensed wit and wisdom to all corners--always brimming with enthusiasm and good cheer, and always eager to help the first-time visitor to Boston learn all the extraordinary charms of our most extraordinary city. As devoted distance runner and founder of the renowned Falmouth Road Race, it was Mr. Leonard who first introduced the running community to the charms of the Eliot Lounge. But even more important, it is Tommy Leonard who embodies the tremendous generosity of spirit that has long characterized the special place. Just as he proudly served his country years ago in the U.S. Marine Corps, Mr. Leonard continues to serve the people of Boston in countless different ways. Over the years T.L. has organized charity drives for scores of worthy causes; whether money was needed to replace a beloved children's statue stolen from the Boston Public Garden, to set up a scholarship fund for the children of a slain police officer, or to meet the medical bills of a badly injured former marathon star, Mr. Leonard has always been at the forefront of those looking to help. Tommy Leonard is the first to point out that he has not been alone in these endeavors. Indeed, the entire staff of the Eliot Lounge deserves tremendous credit for their years of charitable work--as does Eddie Doyle, another legendary Boston publican who is Mr. Leonard's frequent partner in good deeds. But over the years it has been Tommy Leonard who has, time and again, provided the inspiration and the energy needed to get the job done: to turn well-intentioned wishes into concrete deeds. To prove that the volunteer spirit is still alive and well in America today. To harness the generosity and good will of an entire community and, together, to make a real difference in the lives of others. Some who know him say that if Tommy Leonard had only devoted his boundless energy and his promotional genius to making money for himself, he would be a rich man today. But, Mr. President, others who know him--myself included--look at the joy that he has brought to so many others, and we know that Tommy Leonard is already wealthy in the ways that really matter. But now, Mr. President, after all these years, there will soon be no more Eliot Lounge for Tommy Leonard to call home. The congenial little tavern that has seen so many famous faces and so much good cheer will be closing its doors by the end of this month. Before that happens, Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to salute Tommy Leonard, and his colleagues on the staff of the Eliot Lounge, for all the generosity they have shown and all the good works they have so cheerfully performed over the years. I applaud them, I wish them Godspeed, and I also remind them: As T.L. so often observes, ``It's a Wonderful Life.'' And it is even more so, T.L. and colleagues, because of all that you have done.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1996. 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 examples from around the country about a small minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for observance of the Sabbath and other holy days; for employees who must wear religiously required garb, such as a yarmulke; or for clothing that meets modesty requirements. The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination. It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This commonsense 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. It has been endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston. As the Jewish high holidays and eventually Christmas approach, I feel strongly that workers should not have to worry that they will be prohibited from choosing to take time off from work to observe a religious holiday. I urge this body to pass this legislation so that all workers can have equal employment opportunities and practice their religion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud today to introduce the Workplace Religious Freedom Act of 1996. 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 examples from around the country about a small minority of employers who will not make reasonable accommodation for observance of the Sabbath and other holy days; for employees who must wear religiously required garb, such as a yarmulke; or for clothing that meets modesty requirements. The refusal of an employer, absent undue hardship, to provide reasonable accommodation of a religious practice should be seen as a form of religious discrimination, as originally intended by Congress in 1972. And religious discrimination should be treated fully as seriously as any other form of discrimination that stands between Americans and equal employment opportunities. Enactment of the Workplace Religious Freedom Act will constitute an important step toward ensuring that all members of society, whatever their religious beliefs and practices, will be protected from an invidious form of discrimination. It is important to recognize that, in addition to protecting the religious freedom of employees, this legislation protects employers from an undue burden. Employees would be allowed to take time off only if their doing so does not pose a significant difficulty or expense for the employer. This commonsense 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. It has been endorsed by a wide range of organizations including the American Jewish Committee, the Baptist Joint Committee, the Christian Legal Society, and the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Boston. As the Jewish high holidays and eventually Christmas approach, I feel strongly that workers should not have to worry that they will be prohibited from choosing to take time off from work to observe a religious holiday. I urge this body to pass this legislation so that all workers can have equal employment opportunities and practice their religion.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to join once again with my colleague from Wisconsin, Senator Feingold, in reducing waste from the budget and streamlining government. Senator Feingold and I have stood shoulder to shoulder on a number of occasions to cut corporate welfare and to reduce the Federal deficit. Just a few months ago, we were joined by Senator McCain and Senator Thompson in a bold attempt to reduce unnecessary and wasteful corporate welfare in the Federal budget by $60 billion over the next 6 years. It is sometimes difficult to stare down the special interests and take aim at the excess in our budget, but I am determined to continue the fight to ensure our children a debt-free future. Mr. President, I appreciate having the Senator from Wisconsin as a comrade in arms. Last year, I introduced a bill which reduced spending by more than $90 billion by the year 2002. One provision of that bill calls for a reduction of political appointees in the Federal Government to 2,000. The proposal by the Senator from Wisconsin is not quite as ambitious, but it is a fine start to rein in the surge in political appointees. Mr. President, let me be clear on this point: The great growth of political appointees has not occurred under the Clinton Administration. As a matter of fact, Vice President Gore has been a stalwart in reducing the size of government. Facing the legacy of 12 years of irresponsible growth in government under the Reagan-Bush Administrations, our current Vice President has worked with the Congress to reduce the federal payroll to the size it was when John Kennedy was in the White House. This amendment supports the spirit of the Vice President's efforts and reflects my efforts to curtail the growth of political appointees in the Federal Government. Mr. President, in my home state of Massachusetts, political appointees are known as walruses, and I am pleased to help retire a few walruses today. We need to reduce Government responsibly at the Federal level and I hope the states follow our leadership. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, and join us in reducing the size of government and the level of unnecessary Federal spending. I yield the floor.