John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to recognize the achievements and contributions of one of Massachusetts' most beloved sports personalities, Mr. Cam Neely of the Boston Bruins. Last week, Cam announced his retirement from the Boston Bruins after 5 years of struggle and pain caused by nagging injuries. He had played 13 years in the National Hockey League, 3 with the Vancouver Canucks and the last 10 seasons with the Bruins. Through his decade with the Bruins, Cam has become the prototype NHL power forward by combining bone-crushing power with overwhelming talent and grace. In addition to his presence on the ice, he has made a continuing contribution to the community off the ice by establishing the Cam Neely Foundation and planning the Neely House, which will provide a place to stay in Boston for families of cancer patients undergoing treatment at area hospitals. Throughout his career, Cam Neely rose to the challenge of being a top tier player in the NHL, setting records, redefining his position, and setting the standard by which forwards in the NHL are measured today. He played with courage and finesse. His career is a string of highlight films peppered with accomplishments and awards. In his first season with the Bruins, he was awarded the coveted Seventh-Player Award which is given to the Bruin who makes the most significant sustained contribution to the club over the duration of the season. That same season he led the team in scoring with 36 goals. In 1988, Cam provided the spark that lit the fire behind the Bruins' playoff series victory over the Montreal Canadiens--the first such victory in 45 years. During the 1989-90 season, Cam became only the fifth Bruin in history to reach the 50 goals mark and in 1990-91 he became only the second Bruin ever to reach 50 goals in consecutive seasons, joining the great Phil Esposito. Cam was at the height of his talent and skills in the 1991 playoff series against the Pittsburgh Penguins when he suffered an injury that would change his career. The hit resulted in an injury to his thigh that never fully healed. That injury led to another, and then another, and the pain never ceased. For 5 years, Cam Neely was the epitome of perseverance as he worked to keep his body in shape and prepared to play. He never let up and he never gave up. Every season marked a triumphant return to the ice for Boston's most admired hockey player. He would play in pain until the pain became unbearable. He would play whenever he was needed and his body would allow him. He kept coming back, and the Bruins' fans loved him dearly for his efforts. Cam rose above the issues of money and contracts and salary disputes and always seemed to be smiling and happy. He played hockey because he loved the game and it was part of him. During his announcement last week he said, ``I've always wanted to stay in this game as long as I could [while] achieving results and making positive contributions to my team. I never, ever wanted to play the game for the money or simply to go through the motions. Believe me, I loved playing in the big game. I loved the competitiveness of the sport. Since the day I arrived in Boston, I gave 100 percent to our team, to my teammates, and our fans.'' Nobody would argue that fact. Cam worked hard for the Bruins. Even his teammates, opponents, and coaches agree. ``There'll be a lot of highlight clips. I'll just remember him running over people, things like him grabbing the puck and splitting the defense to score against [Patrick] Roy the year we finally beat the Canadiens,'' Bruins captain Ray Bourque said. ``And I'll remember seeing stars when he ran over me during a Canada Cup practice. It was fun to know you had Cam on your side.'' ``You know when I realized how great he was?'' asked Don Sweeney, defenseman and long time teammate of Neely's. ``When he was back for a game and then out for a game, then back for a game, then out for a game. The difference when we had him and when we didn't was tremendous. There was a ripple effect he had on every player in that locker room.'' Adam Oates, Cam's longtime line mate and the man who with him comprised one of the most feared scoring combinations in the NHL, said that Cam's announcement was ``something that we knew was going to happen all along. And today's the black day that it's happening.'' Former Bruin standout Derek Sanderson has always considered Cam Neely one of the game's best forwards. ``His teammates will miss him, and no one will miss him more than Oates. Guys like him don't come along very often. No one can score like Cam; no one can hit like Cam,'' he said. ``You can't replace him, you go along without him.'' Derek's words echo the feelings of most of the Bruins' faithful. Cam Neely cannot be replaced. The team will go on without him. Like Bobby Orr, Gord Kluzak, and Normand Leveille, Cam is forced to leave the game he loves too soon, and before the fans are ready to let him go. But for every game, every period, and every shift, I, and every other Bruins fan, will look to the right wing and imagine the hulking No. 8 streaking along the boards, taking the puck onto his stick, and blazing it past the netminder into the mesh netting of the goal. And, quietly, we will cheer.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today once again the radical right has come to this Senate floor to impose their will against the wishes of a vast majority of Americans. They have come forth again to add an amendment to the Treasury, Postal Service, and general Government appropriations bill that would limit reproductive health services for 1.2 million female Federal employees. The Treasury-postal bill provides the funding for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program [FEHBP], our network of insurance plans that cover approximately 9 million Federal employees and their dependents. Today, there are approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on the FEHBP for their medical care. Mr. President, in the United States we have a Constitution that guarantees an extensive list of freedoms upon which the Government cannot infringe. Perhaps the sponsors of this amendment do not understand the issue at hand. The Supreme Court ruled in Roe versus Wade that abortions are constitutional. It is completely legal for a woman who wants to have an abortion to obtain the services of a doctor who is willing to provide an abortion. Congress should not have the ability to decree to a woman that she cannot obtain an insurance policy that covers abortion, which is a fully legal procedure. This is not the role of Congress. We have no right to impose ourselves and our sense of morality in this way upon the women who work for the Federal Government. Failing to make abortion illegal, antichoice Members of Congress are trying to make this right more difficult to exercise. Singling out abortion for exclusion from health care plans that cover other reproductive health care is harmful to women's health and discriminates against women in public service. In 1993 and 1994, Congress voted to permit Federal employees, like workers in the private sector, to choose a health care plan that covered a full range of reproductive health services, including abortion. It is my belief that health insurance is part of an employees' earned compensation. As is common in private industry, costs for insurance coverage for Federal employees are shared by the employer and the employee. This is similar to the private sector where approximately two-thirds of private fee-for-service plans and 70 percent of health maintenance organizations provide abortion coverage. Despite these facts, last year Congress stripped Federal employees of this right. This year, some Members are again attempting to restrict women's access to reproductive health services. Mr. President, this is not right. It is a troublesome manifestation of the Congress' well- known plantation mentality. Mr. President, this amendment is unjustly restrictive and discriminatory. Passage of this amendment assigns an inferior status to women working in the Federal Government. It is time to stop these attempts to chip away at a woman's legal right to choose. I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator McConnell as a cosponsor to amendment No. 5232.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment by my colleague, the Senator from North Dakota. Mr. President, we must balance the budget. We cannot set our sights lower than that goal. Earlier in this session of Congress, I introduced a bill which would cut wasteful and unnecessary spending by $90 billion over 7 years. This spring, I worked with my distinguished colleague from Arizona [Senator McCain], to reduce spending programs, subsidies, and corporate welfare by $60 billion over 6 years. And most recently, I introduced the Family Income and Economic Security Act--a 20-point program to provide education, job, income and retirement security for Americans while eliminating wasteful spending and costly, counterproductive subsidies and giveaways. This provision is an integral part of that 20-point plan. Mr. President, it is clear that all sectors of our society must contribute to the effort of deficit reduction. That includes the private business sector. The Dorgan-Kerry amendment would close a noxious loophole in our Tax Code which is costing the American taxpayers $2.2 billion over 7 years. And, Mr. President, what adds insult to injury is the fact the current tax law also encourages domestic manufacturers to move their plants overseas. The Senator from North Dakota is quite correct in calling this loophole the job export subsidy. This is clearly something the American taxpayers and our national economy cannot afford. This is not just a hypothetical situation. I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a compelling article from the Boston Globe which describes the effect of this loophole on Massachusetts companies and their workers. Mr. President, if we are to remain a competitive Nation, we must do all we can to eliminate our budget deficit, reduce our national debt, maintain robust economic growth, and encourage manufacturers to retain high-wage jobs on our shores. This amendment moves us in that direction and I encourage our colleagues to support it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I listened to my colleague, the Senator from Texas--and we will hear from others on this floor--talk about the need to defend marriages and to affirm a traditional marriage and to assert that this vote is somehow a vote that will define who is for traditional marriage and who is not. Well, I don't agree with that definition of what this vote is about, and I do not want my feelings about, or opinions about, marriage or traditional marriage to be somehow tailored by political definitions. I am not for same- sex marriage. I have said that publicly. I would not vote for same-sex marriage. I do not believe that this vote is specifically about defending marriage in America. I am going to vote against this bill. I will vote against this bill, though I am not for same-sex marriage, because I believe that this debate is fundamentally ugly, and it is fundamentally political, and it is fundamentally flawed. The Defense of Marriage Act declares today on the floor of the Senate what most Americans think is pretty obvious. It declares what no State has adopted to the contrary, and won't, I imagine, for some time. In fact, the trend among States is to the contrary, no State withstanding that trend. Therefore, I suppose we really should not be surprised that the U.S. Senate is spending its time in an exercise of this kind, which ought to properly feed the cynicism that already attaches to so much of what we do in Washington. The truth that we know, which today's exercise ignores, is that marriages fall apart in the United States, not because men and women are under siege by a mass movement of men marrying men or women marrying women. Marriages fall apart because men and women don't stay married. The real threat comes from the attitudes of many men and women married to each other and from the relationships of people in the opposite sex, not the same sex. Yet, this legislation is directed at something that has not happened and which needs no Federal intervention. Obviously, the results of this bill will not be to preserve anything, but will serve to attack a group of people out of various motives and rationales, and certainly out of a lack of understanding and a lack of tolerance, and will only serve the purposes of the political season. If this were truly a defense of marriage act, it would expand the learning experience for would-be husbands and wives. It would provide for counseling for all troubled marriages, not just for those who can afford it. It would provide treatment on demand for those with alcohol and substance abuse, or with the pernicious and endless invasions of their own abuse as children that they never break away from. It would expand the Violence Against Women Act. It would guarantee day care for every family that struggles and needs it. It would expand the curriculum in schools to expose high school students to a greater set of practical life choices. It would guarantee that our children would be able to read when they leave high school. It would expand the opportunity for adoptions. It would expand the protection of abused children. It would help children do things after school other than to go out and perhaps have unwanted teenage pregnancies. It would help augment Boys Clubs and Girls Clubs, YMCA's and YWCA's, school-to-work, and other alternatives so young people can grow into healthy, productive adults and have healthy adult relationships. But we all know the truth. The truth is that mistakes will be made and marriages will fail. But these are ways that we could truly defend marriage in America. Mr. President, this bill is not necessary. No State has adopted same- sex marriage. We have a judicial question before the court in Hawaii, and it is astonishing to me that the very people who make the loudest and most continuous arguments about Federal mandates and Federal intrusion and leaving the States to their own devices and let the States work their will, before any State in the country has made a choice to do otherwise those very people are leading the charge to have the Federal Government not just intervene, but intervene with a power grab that reaches, unconstitutionally, to do things that you cannot do by statute. I oppose this legislation because not only is it meant to divide Americans, but it is fundamentally unconstitutional, regardless of what your views are. DOMA is unconstitutional. There is no single Member of the U.S. Senate who believes that it is within the Senate's power to strip away the word or spirit of a constitutional clause by simple statute. DOMA would, de facto, add a section to our Constitution's full faith and credit clause, article IV, section 1, to allow the States not to recognize the legal marriage in another State. That is in direct conflict with the very specific understandings interpreted by the Supreme Court of the clause itself. The clause states--simple words--``Full faith and credit shall be given''--not ``may be given,'' ``shall be given''--``in each State to the public Acts, Records and judicial Proceedings of every other State.'' It says: And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof. It doesn't say no effect. It doesn't say can nullify. It doesn't say can obviate or avoid. It says it has to show how you merely procedurally prove that the act spoken of has taken place, and if it has taken place, then what is the full effect of that act in giving full faith and credit to that State. I think any schoolchild could understand that allowing States to not accept the public act of another is the exact opposite of what the Founding Fathers laid forth in the clause itself. Let me repeat: Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. Now, if we intend to change it--and that is a different vote than having the constitutional process properly adhered to. But it seems to me that what Congress is doing is allowing a State to ignore another State's acts, and every law that Congress has ever passed has invoked the full faith and credit of another State's legislation. All of these laws share a basic common denominator. They all implement the full faith and credit mandate. They do not restrict it. Not once has it been restricted in that way. For example, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1990 provided the States have to enforce child custody determinations made by other States. The Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders of 1994 provided that States have to enforce child support determinations made by other States. It did not say you could not do it. It did not say you could avoid it. It did not diminish it. It said you have to enforce it. The Safe Homes for Women Act of 1994 required States to recognize protective orders issued in other States with regard to domestic violence. Those laws are the products of constitutional exercises of the appropriate congressional law in implementing the full faith and credit clause. The bill before us, a statute, is the exact opposite. It is an extreme unconstitutional attempt to restrict and undermine the basic fundamental approach which helps create the concept of a unified and single nation. Madam President, this bill is not just unconstitutional. It is not just unprecedented. It is also unnecessary. Right now, as we speak, there is no rash outbreak among the States to recognize same-sex marriage. In fact, States--one after another--are moving in the opposite direction. For example, the State of Michigan passed a law which defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman and declares Michigan will not recognize a same-sex marriage conducted in another State. This bill is a solution in search of a problem. Madam President, even if the Hawaiian Supreme Court decides to recognize same-sex marriage, Michigan and a dozen other States have spoken against it. Resolving this tension rests squarely with the judicial branch, not the Congress. This is a power grab into States' rights of monumental proportions. Madam President, it is ironic that many of the arguments for this power grab are echoes of the discussion of interracial marriage a generation ago. Nearly 30 years ago, this country and this body heard similar arguments against striking State laws criminalizing interracial marriage. And, the issue was resolved by the Supreme Court in the case Loving versus Virginia. Until the Loving case was decided, many southern States had laws banning interracial marriage. When the Supreme Court ruled that this ban was unconstitutional, one Congressman from Louisiana felt compelled to come to the floor of the Senate and rail against the decision in addition to the nomination of Thurgood Marshall. He said, ``this shows how far we are removed from the ideas of our Founding Fathers. The Justices of the Court interpret laws not on the basis of two centuries of wisdom, but rather in line with current social fads and their own personal theories on how to create the perfect society.'' But that Congressman was wrong 30 years ago. And, thankfully the Court exhibited wisdom in overturning the ban. What if they had not? Pointedly and poignantly, Leon Higginbotham, Chief Justice Emeritus of the Third U.S. Court of Appeals, answers the question for us. He states that ``if the Virginia courts had been sustained by the United States Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas could have been in the penitentiary today rather than serving as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.'' Madam President, as late as 1981, in the midst of a discrimination case, a U.S. Senator threw his support behind a university which banned interracial dating and marriage. Defending a ban on interracial marriage in the 1980s. Madam President, DOMA is unconstitutional, unprecedented and unnecessary. Again, I return to the original questions: What is its legislative purpose? What is its motivation? What does passage of this bill mean for the country? It is hard to believe that this bill is anything other than a thinly veiled attempt to score political debating points by scapegoating gay and lesbian Americans. That is politics at its worst, Mr. President. It is a perfect exemplar of the polarizing issues E.J. Dionne describes in his book, ``Why Americans Hate Politics.'' In the past few years, legislative attacks on gay people have increased in frequency and scope. Trying to keep gay men and lesbians out of the armed services. Trying to keep AIDS educational materials free of any mention of homosexuality. Trying to take away the children of gay parents. Certainly the struggle for civil rights is a long one and individual prejudices are difficult to overcome. The great civil rights teacher Martin Luther King observed: It is pretty difficult to like some people. Like is sentimental and it is pretty difficult to like someone bombing your home; it is pretty difficult to like somebody threatening your children; it is difficult to like congressmen who spend all of their time trying to defeat civil rights. But Jesus says love them, and love is greater than like. Madam President, that is the ultimate irony. For a bill which purports to defend and regulate marriage, there has been so little talk of love here in this Chamber. Madam President, as we quickly approach the end of the millennium, the problems facing average Americans and the pressures experienced by the American family are overwhelming--personal debt and bankruptcies are at an all-time high, divorce rates are skyrocketing, schools are crumbling, education costs are astronomical and health care costs continue to rise. It is clear the Congress should be alleviating the pressures of the American family. That would be the best defense of marriage. If we want to defend marriage, we should be working to change the ugly reality of spousal abuse. We should be redoubling our efforts to eradicate alcohol, drug and other forms of substance abuse. We should acknowledge the pernicious ramifications of abandonment. And we should commit our collective resources to creating educational opportunities for Americans, to securing health care and to easing the economic burden too many people feel today. We should bring Americans together with common purpose and empower individuals and communities to ease the pressure of today's increasingly complicated everyday life. This bill does not bring people together. In fact, it does the exact opposite. It divides Americans. It is a stark reminder that all citizens who play by the rules, who pay their taxes and who contribute to the economic, social and political vibrancy of this great melting pot do not have equal rights. I would have thought that the other side would have learned by now that there is a nasty boomerang effect to the politics of division. It rends the social and political fabric. It divides the country. I have some experience with divided countries. I fought in one. I have looked into the eyes of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, of raw unbridled passion for conflict. Look to Northern Ireland, look to Bosnia, look to the Middle East--and see the end-product of the politics of division. Let us stop this division. Let us balance the budget. Let us provide health security and retirement security. Let us protect our environment. And, most of all, Madam President, let us give everyone a chance for an education. Education is the key to overcoming ignorance, to keeping families together, to providing a glimpse of the American dream. Bolstering education would do more to defend marriage than anything in this bill. This is an unconstitutional, unprecedented, unnecessary and mean- spirited bill. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I will not need much more than 10 minutes or so.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in strong support for the legislation offered by my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts. I am an original cosponsor of the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Mr. President, this Nation is in debt to the senior Senator from Massachusetts for his consistent and unwavering stance on expanding civil rights for all Americans. For decades, he has fought resolutely against all forms of discrimination and, for that, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and this country are richer places. I share his conviction that, as public servants, we must do all we can to secure, ensure and uphold civil rights for all sectors of American society. As any resident of Massachusetts knows, the entire Kennedy family has shaped the latter half of the 20th century with progressive public and social policy. This legacy is so profound in our State that we have all been touched by the generosity and vision of the Kennedy family. Mr. President, when I was first sworn in as a U.S. Senator in 1985, I authored the gay and lesbian civil rights bill. At that time, only five other Senators would join me as cosponsors of that legislation. In the last session of Congress, I testified before the Armed Services Committee to lift the ban on gay men and lesbians serving in the military. I agree with Senator Kennedy that ENDA is a solution to a serious problem. I have heard stories from many Americans who have suffered discrimination in the workplace because of their sexual orientation. It is time for these Americans to have recourse against blatant discrimination, just as Americans who are fired on the basis of their religion, national origin, or gender. Massachusetts is one of the States which has recognized the problems of anti-gay and lesbian discrimination in the workplace and already has an ENDA-like law. Mr. President, last year, I joined 65 of our colleagues in signing a pledge that I would not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation in hiring, promotion and firing. Like the majority of our colleagues, signing this pledge came easy to me. I have always had openly gay and lesbian staff and they have served the people of Massachusetts with effective and committed distinction. I urge our colleagues to live up to the pledge they signed and support this important legislation. I yield the floor. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to comment on the HUD title of the VA-HUD appropriations bill. I first want to commend the chairman and the ranking member of the subscommittee for their hard work on this bill. The competing and diverse priorities addressed by this appropriations bill make it arguably the most difficult of all the bills to craft. The chairman and the ranking members take a thoughtful, considered approach to a difficult task and their efforts deserve recognition. Unfortunately, the VA-HUD Subcommittee has over the last several years been saddled with an insufficient budget allocation. It should not be terribly surprising therefore, that the amounts the subcommittee has provided for many of its programs and activities are inadequate. Nowhere are the overall Federal budget pressures felt more keenly than at HUD. Funding in this bill for public housing operating subsidies, public housing modernization, incremental section 8, elderly and disabled housing, and homeless assistance simply is inadequate relative to the needs across our Nation. But despite the insufficient overall allocation, there are some bright spots in the bill. Several elements of the HUD title deserve particular mention. I congratulate the subcommittee for providing level funding for the HOME and CDBG programs. These are extremely important programs for providing affordable housing and revitalizing distressed communities. Their blend of national priorities and local flexibility makes these two of HUD's strongest programs. I also would like to thank the chairman and the ranking member for accepting two amendments that I offered with other members. The first amendment that I offered with my distinguished colleague from new Mexico, Senator Domenici, will provide a set-aside of $50 million for vouchers for disabled persons. As the Congress has moved to allow local public housing authorities to designate certain housing developments for elderly only, it is important that we provide alternative housing resources to meet the housing needs of disabled individuals who in the past had access to such housing. The second amendment increases the appropriations for the low-income housing preservation program from $350 million to $500 million. This is an extremely important program in Massachusetts and across the country. Thousands of families around the country are threatened with losing their affordable housing as owners prepay their HUD-assisted mortgages and convert the housing to either market-rate housing or other uses. The preservation program provides funding to maintain the buildings as affordable housing. The program has been troubled, but its mission is sound. We on the authorizing committee will continue to work to improve its performance. I again thank the chairman and the ranking member for their support of this amendment and I thank my cosponsors Senators Craig, Moseley-Braun, and Sarbanes. In 1996, Congress provided a priority for funding the portion of the preservation program that provides for the transfer of these developments to community and resident-based nonprofit corporations. I have visited with residents in my home State who have worked for years to assemble funding packages and grant applications to achieve ownership of their dwellings. With this appropriation, the dreams of many across the Nation will come to fruition. But the demand for the sales program has been extraordinary and it is already clear that the $500 million for fiscal year 1997 will not be enough. I am planning to work with the administration and the conferees on this bill to identify other possible sources of funding in order to meet this demand. Finally, Mr. President, I would like to comment on the Bond amendment related to HUD multifamily portfolio restructuring. We have been working very hard in a bipartisan manner in the Banking Committee to address this intractable problem. As others have described, the effort to lower high section 8 costs and avoid excessive FAA mortgage defaults--while at the same time preserving affordable housing--is complicated and costly. The demonstration for which the Bond amendment provides, represents a good first step toward putting in place a program for lowering section 8 costs and restructuring the mortgages in a sound way. Most important, the amendment states that the purpose of the demonstration is to preserve affordable housing and identifies the public interest in the future affordability of these properties. The amendment preserves project-based assistance and ensures that public agencies are involved in the restructuring. I do have several concerns with the Bond amendment--particularly related to the role of the residents, the community, and the local government in the restructuring process--but I am confident the bipartisan approach Senator Bond has taken to this point with respect to this amendment will continue in the conference committee and I look forward to working with the chairman in making these improvements and in putting something in place until the authorizing committee can enact a permanent solution.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to reflect on the provisions of this bill that fund the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] and the Council on Environmental Quality [CEQ] for fiscal year 1997. With regard to the EPA, this bill is a vast improvement over the 1996 bill reported by the Appropriations Committee last year. It is welcome, indeed, that this bill reached the Senate floor without the antienvironmental legislative riders which plagued the 1996 Senate bill. These riders--which the Washington Post dubbed the ``riders from hell'' included legislative provisions which would have prohibited the EPA from implementing provisions in key environmental statutes such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act and would have eliminated EPA's role in issuing permits to fill wetlands. In addition, compared to the severe budget cuts made to the EPA's budget request for fiscal year 1996, this appropriations bill certainly is preferable; it is just 6 percent below the President's requested level. Nonetheless, 6 percent of the EPA budget is over $425 million-- with a disproportionate percentage coming from the EPA operating budget which includes management and oversight for standards-setting and enforcement. We must realize that such a reduction does not come without a significant loss of capability for the environmental protection efforts of this vital agency. I fully support the President's funding request for the EPA--which includes his request to provide $100 million for the Boston Harbor cleanup project. In addition, I am disappointed that the committee cut by 86 percent from the President's request and 76 percent from last year's level funding for the Environmental Technology Initiative and made deep cuts in EPA's climate change program. I greatly regret this bill does not contain the President's levels of support and that there are sufficient Republican votes to prevent passage of amendments that would raise the bill's appropriations levels for these items. As the House and Senate begin meeting in conference to work out their differences on the VA-HUD bill, I will continue working with the President, the subcommittee chairman and ranking member, and other conferees to secure funding for the Boston Harbor project. While I wish to convey my concerns about the extremely serious situation facing the residents of Boston in undertaking the multibillion dollar Boston Harbor project, I want to emphasize that this project merits national attention as do other projects in cities that face requirements for similar water infrastructure improvements to comply with federal mandates. Mr. President, the Boston Harbor project 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 over $5 billion. The sewage treatment plant is being built under a Federal court-ordered schedule that requires completion by 1999. 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 of 50 to 90 percent of the funding for 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. Only approximately 20 percent of the Boston secondary sewerage treatment project costs have been paid by the Federal Government, and that is not even counting the costs of the combined sewer overflow and other improvements that will be required in the future. Let me also say that the Harbor cleanup is not a partisan issue. The Clinton administration each year has included $100 million in its budget request, as did the Bush administration before it. I hope the Congress will take this same bipartisan approach and will appropriate $100 million for the project. I also would like to comment on the importance of funding the Council on Environmental Quality. There are those in the Senate who do not realize the great value of CEQ to the American people. Since its inception in 1971, CEQ has played the key role of arbiter of environmental policy conflicts among Federal agencies. Most recently, CEQ coordinated the administration's support for and contributed to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization legislation and the Food Safety bill. The President and his administration advocate sustainable environmental policies that enhance economic growth. The Vice President, as charged by the President, has led an effort under the National Performance Review to streamline regulations, remove redtape, and reward efficiency, compliance, and innovation by industry. With a very limited budget, CEQ has been and remains a cost-effective and resourceful contributor in these endeavors. The Henry M. Jackson Foundation's 1995 report states that the ``* * * CEQ has never been more needed. The easy environmental problems are resolved. Now the more difficult business begins of seeing to it that governmental efforts produce results in an economically efficient manner and not just greater bureaucracy, waste and frustration.'' CEQ provides an invaluable public service and the limited Federal resources dedicated to its functions are well spent. I compliment the committee on providing adequate funding for these activities. After the dark nights of 1995 and early 1996, we have emerged to find greater reasonableness in the environmental funding and policy actions of the Republican congressional majority. Despite the significant differences that still exist between our views of the level of environmental protection activities the Federal Government should undertake, we are close enough to compromise. I compliment and thank the chairman and ranking member and their staffs for their diligent efforts to bring this bill before the Senate, and urge that they push as hard as possible for the highest achievable level of funding for environmental programs during the conference committee with the House.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last weekend Saddam Hussein sought to test the international community's tolerance and resolve yet again. Some 30,000 Iraqi soldiers, led by the elite Republican Guards, attacked and captured the Kurdish-controlled city of Irbil in northern Iraq. Saddam undertook this action despite warnings from the United States and other members of the international community and in defiance of our collective commitment, born out of the Persian Gulf war, to protect the Kurds. None of us knows why Saddam decided to test us now. But if the history of the last six years has taught us anything, it is that Saddam Hussein does not understand diplomacy, he only understands power, and when he brandishes power in a manner that threatens our interests or violates internationally accepted standards of behavior, we must be prepared to respond--and with force, if necessary. President Clinton's response to Saddam's latest challenge was the right one--decisive, measured, and carefully calculated to take the strategic advantage away from Saddam. By expanding the southern no-fly zone to the 33d parallel, we have denied him the ability to use two key military air bases and to control Iraqi airspace from the Kuwaiti border to the southern outskirts of Baghdad. This significantly reduces his capacity to launch offensive operations against Iraq's neighbors and the Persian Gulf oil fields. By attacking his air defense and command and control systems we have increased our capacity to patrol the no-fly zone and reduced the potential treat to our pilots and those of our British and French allies. Saddam Hussein has tried to explain away this latest aggressive move by contending that his forces entered Irbil at the request of the Kurdistan Democratic Party [KDP], one of the two warring factions in northern Iraq. It is hard to understand why any Kurdish faction would willingly ally with Saddam, given the many years in which his forces have repressed, tortured and abused the human rights of the Kurdish people. However, if the KDP did request Iraqi intervention, that request does not justify the use of force against Kurdish civilians in Irbil. The international community has made it clear since April 1991, when the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 688, that it would not tolerate the repression of the Kurds and other Iraqi civilians. That is why the United Nations established the no-fly zone in northern Iraq. The Iraqi attack on Irbil, and the continued threat posed by Iraqi forces positioned to attack again in support of the KDP, contravenes the letter and the spirit of this resolution. For months the United States has led a diplomatic effort to try to mediate the conflict between two warring Kurdish factions, the Kurdistan Democratic Party led by Massoud Barzani and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan [PUK] led by Jalal Talabani. There is no doubt that the PUK's flirtation with Iran earlier this year and the raw power politics played by these groups opened the door for Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of innocent Kurdish civilians have died, and others could die as long as Saddam has de facto control over Irbil and Iraqi forces remain poised to attack other PUK-controlled areas. The United States has a moral interest in preventing the abuse of the Kurdish people, but our strategic interests go beyond this. We have strategic interests in denying Saddam the capability to take action against Kuwait and other states in the region or to threaten the world's oil supply. We also have a strategic interest in supporting the Iraqi opposition as a way to counter Iran's growing influence and limiting its ability to control a post-Saddam Iraq. That is why we did not--and should not--side with either of the Kurdish factions. The U.S. military response was deliberately designed to accomplish two objectives: first, to make Saddam Hussein pay a steep price for his aggressive moves against Kurdish civilians in Irbil, and second, to weaken his capacity to undertake offensive action in the region. Time and again in the last six years, Saddam has tried to test the international community's commitment to peace and stability in the region. Each and every time he has met a forceful response. Iraq's August 1990 attack on Kuwait resulted in defeat for Iraqi forces at the hands of a U.S.-led coalition. Suppression of the Kurdish revolt in northern Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf war led to the establishment of the northern no-fly zone by the international community. Iraqi threats against United States and allied planes enforcing the no-fly zone in January 1993 led to missile strikes against Iraq's southern air defense systems. Six months later President Clinton ordered United States forces to strike at an Iraqi intelligence facility when he learned of an Iraqi plot to assassinate former President Bush. In October 1994, the United States and its allies sent forces to the region as Iraqi troops began to move south toward Kuwait. We did the same thing the following fall when Iraqi troops appeared to be moving south again. The United States, under President Bush and then President Clinton, led these earlier efforts to contain Saddam. Whereas some of our allies in the region are constrained from acting on this occasion, we are not. Our interests, and the long-term interests of peace and stability in the region, dictate that we respond to this latest test of wills with Saddam. The Iraqi attack on Irbil has had serious ramifications for the people of Iraq. It has resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians. It has set back the possibility of resolving differences and reaching a viable political settlement between the Kurdish factions. It has forced the United Nations Secretary General to suspend implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 986, which provides for the sale of some Iraqi oil to generate funds to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people. Irbil is one of the key distribution centers for this humanitarian assistance. Needless to say that plan cannot go forward in the shadow of Iraqi forces. President Clinton made it clear that we intend to judge Saddam Hussein by his actions, not his words. Saddam has said that Iraq will not respect the expanded no fly zone and yesterday, Iraqi radar locked on a United States plane enforcing the zone. What this means is unclear. Clearly the rational response on Saddam's part would be to refrain from any action that will escalate this crisis. I know that all of us hope that rationality will prevail.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, today as a cosponsor of the Agent Orange Benefits Act Amendment of 1996. I find myself year after year after year giving voice to those Vietnam veterans who still are suffering as a result of their service in Vietnam. Thirty years ago agent orange was sprayed in Vietnam--30 years ago--and we are still debating the bias of each individual analyzing the evidence of its health impact on the veterans and their children. The families who suffer deserve our cooperation. It is time to stop debating and move forward. This amendment does just that. It takes another crucial step forward in repaying our debt to those who have served their country. In some cases, that is a dear debt, indeed. The legacy of Vietnam has cast its dark shadow on many aspects of our daily lives, changed the way many of us think and view war. Today we seek to address the shadow that has been cast over some children of Vietnam veterans. Mr. President, the amendment we are proposing today would extend health care and related benefits to children of Vietnam veterans who suffer from spina bifida, a serious neural tube birth defect that requires life-long care--provided, of course, the children were conceived after the veterans began their service in Vietnam. These children have become the next innocent victims, victims in a long line, who are suffering from the effect of agent orange. Senator Daschle, Senator Rockefeller, I and many others have worked for the past decade to try to bring to a fair and just resolution the questions surrounding agent orange and the effects it has had on the men and women who faithfully served this country. In 1991, we coauthored the agent orange Act of 1991 which required the Institute of Medicine--part of the National Academy of Sciences--to conduct a scientific review of all evidence pertaining to the connection between exposure to agent orange and other herbicides used in Vietnam and subsequent occurrence of health-related conditions. As a result of this law, a report was issued by the National Academy of Sciences in March 1993 and it was to be followed by biennial updates for the next 10 years. The first report published by the National Academy of Sciences in 1993 created four categories to classify the level of association between certain health conditions and exposure to agent orange. Category I contains conditions for which there is sufficient evidence of an association. Category II contains conditions for which there is limited or suggestive evidence of an association. After 1993, the VA provided compensation for all conditions contained in categories I and II. Conditions for which there is inadequate or insufficient evidence to determine whether an association exists were placed in category III and compensation was not provided for them. When the latest of the NAS biennial updates was issued in March of this year, it cited new evidence supporting the link between exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in children of veterans who served in Vietnam. The NAS panel moved ``spina bifida in offspring'' from category III into category II, based on the results of three epidemiological studies which suggest that a father's exposure to herbicides may put his children at a greater risk of being born with spina bifida. The Ranch Hand Study, which examined a group of veterans who were directly involved with spraying 19 million gallons of chemical defoliant in Vietnam during the war, was the largest of these studies. Over the past 2 years the results of the Ranch Hand study have been reanalyzed by the U.S. Air Force, and this new analysis reinforced evidence of a connection between agent orange exposure and spina bifida in offspring that had been found in other studies. This ultimately led to the committee's conclusion that there is limited or suggestive evidence of an association. I ask unanimous consent to place an article in the Record that discusses at length the basis of these findings.

Mr. KERRY. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, as mandated by the 1991 law, initiated a comprehensive review of the 1996 NAS report and made consequent policy recommendations to the President. Subsequently, in May, President Clinton announced that the administration would propose legislation to aid Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from the disease spina bifida. Our amendment fulfills that commitment by recognizing and accepting responsibility for one of the serious health care needs of veterans' families that the preponderance of evidence suggests stems from the tragic effects of agent orange. Since 1985, Vietnam veterans have been eligible for free health care from the Veterans Administration for conditions that are related to exposure to agent orange. Veterans' disability compensation has been awarded to veterans affected by several agent orange-related illnesses including non-Hodgkins lymphoma, soft tissue sarcoma, Hodgkin's disease, chloracne, respiratory cancers, multiple myeloma, and, most recently, prostate cancers and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. There are those who will stand before us today and argue that there is not enough credible evidence to make a positive association between exposure of a veteran to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in that veteran's children, and that, accordingly, there are not sufficient grounds to add it to the list of conditions I have just mentioned. I will say again today what I said first back in May 1988, and repeated just last month: It is offensive to veterans to tell them that there is not enough ``scientific evidence'' to justify compensation . . . The evidence is in their own bodies, and even worse, in the bodies of their children. Both the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, have asked that spina bifida in veterans' offspring be considered service connected. If we do not act on this proposal today, we may not be able to do so this Congress. It will be pushed aside because of the tight schedule due to the election cycle this year. For 30 years many issues surrounding Vietnam have been put aside to be dealt with another day by different people. Mr. President, we cannot let this continue--we must act today and allow the pain to be eased for the children and their families who are suffering. This bill will grant the VA the necessary means to finally start providing needed care to these children who carry the scars of a war they never saw or fought. I know that there is still controversy about the effects of agent orange. There may always be controversy, just as there may always be controversy about the Vietnam war itself. We as adults know that most frustrating of all this world's realities: there are some things we as human beings can never know for certain and which, therefore, always will be controversial. But we must set aside the controversy--or put it behind us--to enable suffering children to receive the care and treatment they need when responsible, intelligent people acting in good faith can look back and discern the source of that suffering. This is not just a theoretical concern to me, Mr. President. There are real human beings in my State of Massachusetts who are among the American veterans and family members whose lives have been effected by spina bifida. I want to compliment the Democratic leader for his tenacious, exemplary leadership on this difficult issue. He has struggled valiantly to secure fair treatment for those who sacrificed so greatly for our Nation by their service in Vietnam. I thank him for permitting me to join him in bringing this amendment before the Senate today. I also want to commend the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller, the former chairman of the Veterans Affairs Committee who now serves as its ranking Democrat. I hope the veterans of our Nation, those who served in Vietnam and those who served in other conflicts, realize what kind of friend--but, more importantly, what kind of effective advocate--they have in Jay Rockefeller. His work and the work of his staff on this legislation were crucial, and I express my appreciation to them. Mr. President, we must not permit our inaction or our lack of absolute certitude to make some of the children of our Vietnam veterans the last victims of the Vietnam war. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank and congratulate my colleagues on the VA, HUD, Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Bond and Senator Mikulski, for their wisdom in providing $40 million for the Youthbuild program for fiscal year 1997. This amount is the same approved by the Senate last year for the current fiscal year, which was cut in half in negotiations with the House. The Youthbuild Program gives young adults in our inner cities a chance. This program offers young adults ages 16 to 24 the opportunity to rehabilitate housing for the homeless or low-income people while attending academic and vocational training classes half time. Participants typically alternate a week on a construction site with a week in the Youthbuild classroom, where they work toward their GED's or high school diplomas. Youthbuild programs usually run for 12 months, after which graduates are placed in jobs or college. The programs are able to provide another 12 months of followup to assist these graduates to successfully complete their transitions from school to work. The design of Youthbuild makes it unique among job training and community development programs. Youthbuild places a major emphasis on leadership development, with leadership defined as taking responsibility to make things go right for yourself, your family, and your community. Intensive counseling and a positive peer group provide personal support and an affirmative set of values to assist young people to make a dramatic change in their relationship to their communities and their own families. Thus, through Youthbuild's learning, construction, and personal components, students simultaneously gain the educational skills, work training, and sense of self they need to go on to productive, responsible futures. In 1995 alone, Youthbuild programs helped more than 3,000 young people to become positive leaders and peer models in their communities. There are now 90 HUD-funded Youthbuild programs in operation in 38 States, and 56 organizations are planning to establish Youthbuild programs in their own cities and rural communities. Over 540 community organizations in 49 States and the District of Columbia applied to HUD last year for Youthbuild funding. Despite the program's success, fiscal 1996 funding for this program was cut from $40 to $20 million at the behest of the House of Representatives. The Senate bill had contained a $40 million earmark. A return to the 1995 funding level is necessary if we are to maintain the achievements and realize the promise of this valuable movement. This program and the young people it serves--who also are the young people who do much of its work--need our help. They are some of the best that we have in this country and I am proud of their achievements and their drive to help themselves and to help others around them. They are a class act and the work they do is truly inspiring. The $40 million for Youthbuild for fiscal year 1997 will allow Youthbuild to enroll 2,000 more young people nationwide, directly helping at-risk youth and furthering the development of affordable housing for the communities in which they live. It will preserve the infrastructure of local programs upon which we can then build and expand while steadily leveraging increased local support. I want to thank the 38 other Senators signing a letter to Senators Bond and Mikulski requesting the $40 million figure and I urge my Senate colleagues to insist on this amount in conference. Mr. President, I would also like to offer my sincere congratulations to Ms. Dorothy Stoneman, the founder and president of Youthbuild USA, for her tireless and selfless contributions to the Youthbuild Program and to youth across the United States. She was recently awarded the prestigious MacArthur Foundation Award in recognition of her long fight to uplift the lives of youths on the margins of poor communities. She is a wonderful example of how individuals can really do good for others in this world and I want to make known my great admiration and praise for her efforts. This award is a testament to her hard work, and to the youth that are making our cities and towns better places to live every day. Her vision is inspiring and her enthusiasm contagious. When people say that nothing works, when people say that poverty is inevitable, and when people say that there is no way to change injustice, Ms. Dorothy Stoneman is there to demonstrate that futility is not inevitable. She is a real life hero and I would like to thank her for her commitment to excellence. But what Dorothy Stoneman wants more than anyone's words of praise is the ability to offer to more young people Youthbuild's demonstrated ability to help young people take responsibility for themselves and their communities--to rescue down and out youths for lives of fulfillment and contribution. We help our country when we help these young people via Youthbuild. rouge river national wetweather demonstration project and the clinton river watershed

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join with the distinguished Senator from Arkansas as a cosponsor of his amendment and urge my colleagues to support this effort to terminate funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Space Station program, which the General Accounting Office estimates will cost American taxpayers $94 billion. Every day, the working families of Massachusetts have to make tough choices about what they can afford, how to pay the rent, and whether they can send their kids to college. The Federal budget deficit, while reduced by two-thirds due to President Clinton's leadership and the courage of the Democratic- controlled Congress in 1993, is still too high and must be eliminated. It is a drain on our economy and, increasingly, the debt service we pay is robbing us of the ability to make badly needed investments in our future. I have been working in the U.S. Senate to make the tough choices necessary to balance the budget. When measured against this imperative, I believe the space station's potential benefits--which I recognize--do not stand the test. I believe we must terminate funding for this program. We cannot spend nearly $100 billion of the taxpayers money to fund the space station and then say that we do not have enough money to put cops on the beat, clean our environment, and ensure that our children get the best education possible. The Senator from Arkansas, joined by several others of us, has made a valiant effort to halt this project again and again over the past several years. I am hopeful that this year the time has come when the Senate will exercise fiscal responsibility over our Federal budget, like any family in Massachusetts would over its own family budget, by terminating the space station immediately in order to reduce the deficit. In 1984, NASA justified the space station based on eight potential uses. Now only one of these assignments remains: the space station will be used as a research laboratory. However, the costs of performing scientific research in space simply outweigh the potential benefits. It will cost over $12,000 to ship 1 pound of payload to the space station. Many of my colleagues support the space station because it creates jobs. But the project's costs for developing jobs are exorbitant--those jobs will cost approximately $161,000 each. If invested here on terra firma, that amount of money would fund three or four or even more jobs. As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, I have fought, along with the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings] and other Senators, to secure funding for many important scientific programs. Many of these programs have been shortchanged in order to help pay for the costs associated with the development of the space station. Allowing this extraordinary large science program to receive funding at the expense of these other so-called small science programs--which I believe will produce more products and more valuable products--is unacceptable. These small programs are creating thousands of high wage technology jobs at a fraction of the cost associated with the space station. In the space program itself, the enormous level of funding consumed by the space station is crowding out much smaller programs for satellites and unmanned space probes, which most experts consider more cost-effective than manned missions. These activities are aimed at expanding our understanding of the Sun, the solar system, and the universe beyond. The specific programs in this category include the ``new millennium,'' a program to build robotic spacecraft one-tenth the size and cost of satellites; the Cassini mission to Saturn, scheduled for launch in 1997; continuation of the Discovery missions, each of which costs less than $150 million, can be launched within 3 years of the start of its development, and is used by NASA to find ways to develop smaller, cheaper, faster, better planetary spacecraft; and the Mars surveyor program which funds a series of small missions to resume the detailed exploration of Mars after the loss of the Mars Observer mission in 1993. Funding for projects in this area will be approximately $1.86 billion in fiscal year 1997 which represents a 9-percent reduction from last year. The academic research establishment is concerned that the space station appears to be draining funds from these other space projects. Also included among the programs placed at risk by the space station is the mission to planet Earth, NASA's satellite program to explore global climate change by means of a series of Earth observing satellites launched over a 15-year period, beginning in 1998--a program endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. Given the structure of congressional appropriations bills, the enormous funding for the space station has come not just at the expense of other space programs but at the expense of environmental research and other important activities that promise to improve the lives of our citizens and enhance our security more completely. Building the space station has become a joint effort between the United States and Russia. We all want to see continued progress in United States-Russian relations. However, we should be encouraging Russia to house and feed its own people, provide jobs, and above all care for its deteriorating nuclear powerplants and dismantle its nuclear missiles and warheads. Asking Russia to commit its resources to pursue an uncertain and risky space station venture instead of encouraging it to tend to these important matters is unwise. Some may argue that we have lost our vision if we terminate the space station. But their concern is misplaced. We still have vision. But the vision is to restore the American dream to our citizens, to restore their sense of safety on the streets, to invest in technology that will increase our competitiveness and the quality of jobs, to invest in research that will cure our deadly diseases, and to restore our communities to the condition where children can learn and dream. It is time to decide. I think the American people are watching impatiently to see whether the U.S. Congress can deliver spending reductions for programs that are politically popular but fiscally unwise. I commend my distinguished colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, for his continuing leadership on this important issue. I urge all my colleagues to vote to terminate the space station.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in introducing the Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord [SuAsCo] Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. This is the companion bill to H.R. 3405, sponsored by Representatives Meehan, Markey, and Torkildsen. The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord river area is rich in history and literary significance. It has been the location of many historical events, most notably the Battle of Concord in the Revolutionary War, that gave our great Nation its independence. The Concord River flows under the North Bridge in Concord, MA, where, on April 18, 1775, colonial farmers fired the legendary ``shot heard around the world'' which signaled the start of the Revolutionary War. In later years, this scenic area was also home to many of our literary heroes including, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau, and Louisa May Alcott. Their writing often focused on the bucolic rivers. Thoreau spent most of his life in Concord, MA, where he passed his days immersed in his writing and enjoying the natural surroundings. He spoke of the Concord River when he wrote ``the wild river valley and the woods were bathed in so pure and bright a light as would have waked the dead, if they had been slumbering in their graves, as some suppose. There needs no strong proof of immortality.'' This area was held close to many an author's heart. It was a place of relaxation and inspiration for many. The Sudbury, Assabet, and Concord Wild Rivers Act would amend the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act to include a 29 mile segment of the Assabet, Concord, and Sudbury Rivers. Based on a report authorized by Congress in 1990 and issued by the National Park Service in 1995, these river segments were determined worthy of inclusion in the Wild and Scenic Rivers Program. In its report, the SuAsCo Wild and Scenic Study Committee showed that this area has not only the necessary scenic, recreational, and ecological value, but also the historical and literary value to merit the Wild and Scenic River designation. All eight communities in the area traversed by these river segments are supporting his important legislation. Our legislation is of minimal cost to the Federal Government but by using limited Federal resources we can leverage significant local and State effort. Provisions in the bill limit the Federal Government's contribution to just $100,000 annually, with no more than a 50 percent share of any given activity. This is a concept that merits the support of Congress. Should our bill become law, the SuAsCo River stewardship council, in cooperation with Federal, State, and local governments would manage the land. We now have the opportunity to protect the precious 29-mile section of the Assabet, Sudbury, and Concord Rivers. This area is not only rich in ecological value but also in historical and literary value. I urge my colleagues to support this bill and through it to preserve this wild river valley for the enjoyment and instruction of all who live and work there, for visitors from throughout the nation and, perhaps most importantly, for generations yet to come. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the welfare bill we passed this week would allow States to experiment with various welfare policies. Many States may implement innovative welfare policies to move parents from welfare to work. But if we are sending Federal money to States, if we are going to take this risk and allow States to experiment, we must be sure that child poverty does not increase. There is nothing more important than constantly reminding ourselves that our focus is--or ought to be--this Nation's children. That was the focus when under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership title IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. The objective here is to help impoverished children. This bill I am introducing today says that if child poverty increases in a State after the date of enactment of the welfare bill, then that State would be required to submit a corrective action plan. Although a weaker version of my bill passed and was included in the welfare bill, I am introducing this as a separate bill in the hope that ultimately we will be able to pass the strongest possible version. What would this bill do? This bill says that if the most recent State child poverty rate exceeds the level for the previous year by 5 percent or more then the State would have to submit to the HHS Secretary within 90 days a corrective action plan describing the actions the state shall take to reduce child poverty rates. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this bill in no way intrudes on a State's ability to design its own welfare program. State flexibility would not be decreased in any way. This bill simply says that if a state's welfare system increases child poverty, that state must take corrective action. Mr. President, I believe all of us regardless of party can agree on two things at least: We can all agree that the child poverty rate in this country is too high. The fact is that 15.3 million U.S. children live in poverty. This means that more than 1 in 5 children--21.8 percent--live in poverty. In Massachusetts, there are more than 176,000 children who live in poverty. And despite the stereotypes, Mr. President, the majority of America's poor children are white (9.3 million) and live in rural or suburban areas (8.4 million) rather than central cities (6.9 million). The other thing on which we can all agree, because it is a fact rather than an opinion, is that the child poverty rate in this country is dramatically higher than the rate in other major industrialized countries. According to an excellent, comprehensive recent report by an international research group called the Luxembourg Income Study, the child poverty rate in the United Kingdom is less than half our rate (9.9 percent), the rate in France is less than one-third of our rate (6.5 percent), and the rate in Denmark (3.3 percent) is about one-sixth our rate. Mr. President, we know that poverty is bad for children. This should be obvious. Nobel prizewinning economist Robert Solow and the Children's Defense Fund recently conducted the first-ever long-term impact of child poverty. They found that their lowest estimate was that the future cost to society of a single year of poverty for the 15 million poor children is $36 billion in lost output per worker. When they included lost work hours, lower skills, and other labor market disadvantages related to poverty, they found that the future cost to society was $177 billion. With this bill, I want to make sure that, at the very least, if a State's welfare plan increases child poverty--instead of increasing the number of parents moving from welfare to work and self-sufficiency-- that State will take immediate steps to refocus its program. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that welfare reform results in more parents working, not more child poverty.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a good day for hard-working Americans and small business owners across the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The final passage of the Small Business Job Protection Act will stoke the engine of job growth in this country and will help further the current economic expansion. Just 2 days ago, we learned that, in the second quarter of 1996, our national economy posted a robust 4.2 percent growth rate. This buoyant growth figure is just the latest indication that the Clinton economic plan which the Congress passed in 1993 without one single Republican vote is benefiting hard-working Americans. We have unprecedented low interest rates and subdued inflation and unemployment levels. In fact, the Clinton plan has created more than 10 million jobs since its enactment. Mr. President, the Clinton plan reduced the deficit from a record- high $290 billion in 1992 to a projected $117 billion this year. That is a 60-percent reduction of the deficit in 4 years, Mr. President. But some Members on the other side of the aisle seem to forget that deficit reduction is, in and of itself, not an economic policy. Cutting wasteful spending in order to keep interest rates low whole protecting programs and services which stimulate growth and create jobs is an economic policy. It is an economic plan. It is, in fact, the core of the Clinton plan, and I am pleased to have helped shape this plan. Just 2 weeks ago, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan told me that our economy has not looked this sanguine in 3 years. But I reminded him during our Banking Committee hearing that all Americans have not yet felt the benefits of the Clinton plan. Accordingly, I introduced the American Family Income and Economic Security Act this year. Several provisions of my 20-point plan will become law when the President signs the conference report before us. One of these provisions is raising the minimum wage to $5.15 per hour, which I will address in a separate statement later this afternoon. Two other provisions of my bill which are echoed in the Small Business Job Protection Act are the extension of the credit for research and experimentation and the deduction for employer-provided educational assistance. This bill will extend the R&E Tax Credit, sometimes called the Research and Development Tax Credit, until May 1997. Mr. President, for years, I have fought to make this credit permanent; it is one of the most important tax provisions for our high-technology, high-wage, job- crating industries, many of which are found in my home State. I am disappointed this bill does not make the credit permanent or retroactive; however, I am pleased the Congress is once again acknowledging the significance of the credit. The bill will also extend the exclusion, up to $5,250, for employer- provided educational assistance through May 1997. This provision gives many Americans an opportunity to further their education while working. It allows them to upgrade their skills in order to survive and compete in the changing global economy. These provisions are the logical complements to the Clinton economic plan. They will help more working Americans to enjoy the benefits of the current robust economic growth. I will continue to fight for other provisions of my American Family Income and Economic Security, like allowing more Americans to save for their retirement through IRA's, safeguarding pension plans from corporate raiders, reducing capital gains tax rates for investors in targeted, high-technology industries, furthering training programs and expanding stock option programs. Mr. President, there is one last provision of the small business job protection bill of which I am extremely proud. For almost 8 years, hard-working owners of fishing vessels in New Bedford, MA, have been subject to an Internal Revenue Service ruling that would have resulted in approximately $11 million in penalties. This situation arose from an IRS misinterpretation of the Tax Code as applied to crewmembers on small fishing vessels. The IRS' interpretation and assessment nearly devastated the fishing families in southeastern Massachusetts--a region struggling with the departure of the textile industry and the demise of the fishery. I am pleased that this bill includes a correction to this wrong-headed interpretation. This action is providing relief for four fishing vessels in New Bedford--F/V Edgartown, F/V Nordic Pride, F/V Lady J, F/V Steel--by rendering moot a court action against them. Life on the seas requires fishermen to be ruggedly independent individuals. Fishing boat operations reflect this independence in that they are fundamentally small business operations with crews that typically vary from trip to trip, with each crewmember acting as a free agent. Recognizing that there was a unique worker arrangement on fishing vessels, Congress amended the Tax Code in 1976 to clarify the employment status of crewmembers as self-employed and required the self-employed crewmembers to be compensated solely with a share of the catch. It is common practice on fishing boats around the country to provide a small cash payment called a pers to the cook, first mate and engineer in recognition of additional duties they perform at sea. These pers represent only 1 to 5 percent of the total compensation which amounts to approximately $500 annually on a $30,000 income. This bill will allow the pers payments--which are essentially calculated as a share of the catch--without jeopardizing the self- employment status of crewmembers. Let me emphasize, Mr. President, that the boat owners believed they complied with the new tax laws and regulations, and in fact they did comply with the law as Congress intended it to be applied to small fishing vessels. With my colleagues from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy and Congressman Frank, I tried to remedy this situation for 7 years. We appealed to the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, and introduced legislation that was vetoed twice by President Bush. Today, I am pleased that this issue will be resolved as soon as President Clinton signs this bill. Mr. President, this has been a long and difficult struggle to provide relief for the fishing families of New Bedford. Like the hard-working people of southeastern Massachusetts, small business owners and American workers will enjoy the benefits of this bill. I am pleased that the Senate will speak with a strong bipartisan voice to raise the minimum wage, to provide tax incentives for small businesses and, especially, to assist the families of New Bedford, MA. I yield the floor. employer securities in erisa plans

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today--finally--we are raising the minimum wage and putting families first. We have won a major victory for every American who values work and believes in fairness. It is a victory for common sense over ideology, for bipartisanship over saber rattling. It is a victory for 290,000 hard-working families in Massachusetts who are playing by the rules and struggling to make ends meet--who have fallen behind in the last 20 years and now have a chance to do better, to keep up, and give their children a chance at a decent life. It is a victory for the millions of Americans who were trying to make a living and raise a family on $4.25 an hour and now will get $1800 more a year--enough to buy groceries for 7 months. Raising the minimum wage is a work force enhancement program and a family protection program for an investment of 90 cents an hour--a move which will strengthen the fabric of the American community and narrow the widening gap in the workforce. For the first time in years, we are giving workers a raise. This is a down payment on our commitment to make sure that everyone in this economy can participate--that everyone can earn more, learn more, provide more for their families, and be part of an economy that works for families--that values the dignity of work for those at the bottom as well as the top. Mr. President, raising the minimum wage is, in fact, the most basic welfare reform measure we could enact. It helps make work pay for those who will be returning to the workforce. It will allow working mothers who come off welfare to have a fighting chance to put food on the table for their children and still find enough to pay the rent. In the last few months we have heard a lot of talk from many of my Republican colleagues that welfare recipients need to learn the dignity of work, and we would agree with them and we have passed a welfare reform package incorporating that concept. But I also believe that the dignity of a liveable minimum wage is that, as a society, we believe that if you are willing to work hard, you deserve the dignity of earning enough to at least pull yourself out of poverty and put food on the table and a roof over your children's heads. Mr. President, this is the beginning of a new era of worker fairness, of giving a raise to those who need it most, and taking one more step toward relieving the insecurities of the American worker. There is no greater gift to a young mother who is trying to make ends meet, trying to pay the rent, buy food, pay child care, pay for health care, and save for the future than to say to her that we know how difficult the struggle is and we, as a nation, as a Congress, as a people are willing to do what we can to help. Today, Mr. President, with this vote to increase the minimum wage and give workers a raise, we have sent a message to America that we have rejected the extreme, hard line policies of the ideological warriors who believe that the bottom line is the only line, and that if those at the top earn more then those at the bottom will be better off. We have sent a message, instead, that we are, indeed, a common sense, pro- family community that believes in fairness and in a fair wage for a day's work. And we have sent a message that we believe that if you increase the intrinsic value of work you decrease the emotional cost of welfare, and the emotional toll that hopelessness and fear take on hard working mothers and families. Mr. President, we have done the right thing. Some have fought it. Some have argued vehemently against it. Some have found arguments to try to stop it. But in the end, we have struck an important blow for fairness, for work, for families; and in so doing we have brought two words back into the lexicon of the 104th Congress and they are ``compassion'' and ``community''. Increasing the minimum wage means that we understand that we are all in this together and that we care. That, Mr. President, is a victory for the principles for which I have fought during my tenure here, and for which I will continue to fight in the future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to support final passage of H.R. 3060 as amended by S. 1645, the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996, which I introduced earlier this year. This legislation will enable the United States to implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Protocol was negotiated by the parties of the Antarctic Treaty System and signed in October, 1991. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol on October 7, 1992. In August 1993, I introduced the precursor to this bill and the Senate Commerce Committee reported it to the full Senate in early 1994. Unfortunately, continuing disagreements among scientists, conservation groups, and the Administration about the legislative changes needed for the United States to carry out its responsibilities under the Protocol prevented further action on that bill. Passage of this bill today brings to a close a long, arduous process in which all of the parties mentioned above have finally reached agreement. The bill Senator Hollings and I introduced is supported by all the parties engaged in this somewhat lengthy, but ultimately successful, consensus-building process. The Commerce Committee held a hearing on S. 1645 in June and ordered the bill to be favorably reported. During committee consideration of the bill, members agreed to work with Senator Stevens on a floor amendment addressing polar research and policy. That amendment offered today to S. 1645 requires the National Science Foundation to report to Congress on the use and amounts of funding provided for Federal polar research programs. There is no opposition to this amendment. Mr. President, S. 1645 builds on the existing U.S. regulatory framework provided in the Antarctic Conservation Act to implement the Protocol and to balance two important goals. The first goal is to conserve and protect the Antarctic environment and resources. The second is to minimize interference with scientific research. S. 1645 amends the Antarctic Conservation Act to make existing provisions governing U.S. research activities consistent with the requirements of the Protocol. As under current law, the Director of the National Scientific Foundation (NSF), would remain the lead agency in managing the Antarctic science program and in issuing regulations and research permits. In addition, the bill calls for comprehensive assessment and monitoring of the effects of both governmental and nongovernmental activities on the fragile Antarctic ecosystem. It also would continue indefinitely a ban on Antarctic mineral resource activities. Finally, S. 1645 amends the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to implement provisions of the Protocol relating to protection of marine resources. As one of the founders of the Antarctic Treaty System, the United States has an obligation to enact strong implementing legislation, and is long overdue in completing ratification of the Protocol. In closing, Mr. President, I would like to thank Senator Hollings for all of his assistance in getting agreement on this legislation. The House passed similar legislation, H.R. 3060, by a vote of 352-4 in June. I urge my colleagues' support for final passage of the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the welfare bill we passed this week would allow States to experiment with various welfare policies. Many States may implement innovative welfare policies to move parents from welfare to work. But if we are sending Federal money to States, if we are going to take this risk and allow States to experiment, we must be sure that child poverty does not increase. There is nothing more important than constantly reminding ourselves that our focus is--or ought to be--this Nation's children. That was the focus when under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership title IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. The objective here is to help impoverished children. This bill I am introducing today says that if child poverty increases in a State after the date of enactment of the welfare bill, then that State would be required to submit a corrective action plan. Although a weaker version of my bill passed and was included in the welfare bill, I am introducing this as a separate bill in the hope that ultimately we will be able to pass the strongest possible version. What would this bill do? This bill says that if the most recent State child poverty rate exceeds the level for the previous year by 5 percent or more then the State would have to submit to the HHS Secretary within 90 days a corrective action plan describing the actions the state shall take to reduce child poverty rates. Mr. President, I want to be clear that this bill in no way intrudes on a State's ability to design its own welfare program. State flexibility would not be decreased in any way. This bill simply says that if a state's welfare system increases child poverty, that state must take corrective action. Mr. President, I believe all of us regardless of party can agree on two things at least: We can all agree that the child poverty rate in this country is too high. The fact is that 15.3 million U.S. children live in poverty. This means that more than 1 in 5 children--21.8 percent--live in poverty. In Massachusetts, there are more than 176,000 children who live in poverty. And despite the stereotypes, Mr. President, the majority of America's poor children are white (9.3 million) and live in rural or suburban areas (8.4 million) rather than central cities (6.9 million). The other thing on which we can all agree, because it is a fact rather than an opinion, is that the child poverty rate in this country is dramatically higher than the rate in other major industrialized countries. According to an excellent, comprehensive recent report by an international research group called the Luxembourg Income Study, the child poverty rate in the United Kingdom is less than half our rate (9.9 percent), the rate in France is less than one-third of our rate (6.5 percent), and the rate in Denmark (3.3 percent) is about one-sixth our rate. Mr. President, we know that poverty is bad for children. This should be obvious. Nobel prizewinning economist Robert Solow and the Children's Defense Fund recently conducted the first-ever long-term impact of child poverty. They found that their lowest estimate was that the future cost to society of a single year of poverty for the 15 million poor children is $36 billion in lost output per worker. When they included lost work hours, lower skills, and other labor market disadvantages related to poverty, they found that the future cost to society was $177 billion. With this bill, I want to make sure that, at the very least, if a State's welfare plan increases child poverty--instead of increasing the number of parents moving from welfare to work and self-sufficiency-- that State will take immediate steps to refocus its program. Mr. President, I urge all my colleagues to support this bill to ensure that welfare reform results in more parents working, not more child poverty.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will only take a moment, if I may.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to pay a special tribute to the leadership of two Senators on the issues that we have just passed. There are a lot of people who often question what happens around here and the meaning of the life of being a Senator, and some people have, obviously, chosen to engage in a different life and move on, some out of frustration from what you can get done around here. I think the example of my senior colleague, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, on the legislation that we have just passed, both the health care bill and the minimum wage, is precisely what being a U.S. Senator is all about and why it is so important for people to be able to make a difference in the lives of our fellow citizens. Both of these bills have happened because of many people, and Senator Kennedy graciously mentioned many of those involved in it. But I think all of us know that on day after day after day he was down here on the floor blocking, pushing tenaciously, advocating on behalf of people who do not often have a loud voice on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Millions of Americans will now earn more and millions of Americans will preserve more of their income as well as the fabric of their lives as a consequence of his extraordinary commitment to these two issues. I think the entire Senate should salute the meaning that he has given to being a Senator and a legislator in the course of these efforts. For Senator Kassebaum, who will be leaving the U.S. Senate, I think that this health care bill would not have been on the floor, notwithstanding Senator Kennedy's great efforts, had she not stood up and made it clear that this bill was going to find its moment on the floor of the U.S. Senate. She stood up to the leadership on her side and made that clear. So this bill is a legacy to two Senators who have cared and remain steadfast in their sense of priorities and of public rectitude. I wanted to pay tribute to both of them for those efforts. And there are many, many Americans whose lives will be better because of what has been achieved here today. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted that Americans will finally receive the benefits of the health care reforms contained in the Kennedy-Kassebaum bill--benefits which the General Accounting Offices estimates will help over 21 million people. But I want to talk today about one particular person who will benefit from this bill, a woman from Florence, MA, who wrote me recently about her daughter. She supports this bill, she said, because her daughter has diabetes and the family had a terrible time finding health insurance that would cover her. In her letter she told me, ``I think it's immoral for health insurance companies to cut off coverage even while the people they cover are paying their premiums. No health insurance company should have the power to do this to their clients.'' Millions of Americans have medical histories or preexisting conditions that make it difficult to get comprehensive insurance coverage. As many as 81 million Americans have preexisting medical conditions that could affect their insurability. Many people are locked in their jobs because they fear they will be unable to obtain comprehensive insurance in new jobs. And many people who work in small businesses often have trouble getting insurance especially if 1 employee has medical problems. This bill takes very important steps forward to correct these problems. But we must do more so that ultimately we have coverage for all Americans. Currently, 40 million Americans live without health insurance, and 23 million of the 40 million are workers, according to a study by the Tulane University School of Public Health. Furthermore, an average of more than 1 million children a year have been losing private health insurance since 1987. In Massachusetts alone, there are more than 130,000 children--one-tenth of all the children in my State--who are without any health insurance, private or public, for the entire year. And many more children lack health insurance for part of the year. A recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association reported that almost one-quarter of U.S. 3-year-olds in 1991 lacked health insurance for at least a month during their first 3 years, and almost 60 percent of those lacked insurance for 6 or more months. It is time that we help the American people get the health insurance they rightfully deserve. Mr. President, this Congress continues to have an unacceptable record when it comes to addressing the real needs of American workers and families. Political divisions and Presidential politics have become an everyday feature of Senate floor action, making it impossible for us to do much of the people's business. Fortunately, this bill is a notable exception. Finally, I want to applaud the vision, commitment, and political savvy of the distinguished chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee, Senator Kassebaum, whom I greatly admire, and the distinguished ranking member of that committee, the senior Senator from my State, who has been a leader for his entire career on health care issues. To a very considerable extent we all are in their debt as we send this legislation to the President, because it was their commitment, stamina, and statesmanship that worked past what again and again appeared to be intractable differences of opinion among 535 members of the House and Senate. This is a tremendous victory for the American people, but it is also a richly deserved personal victory for both Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. I will proudly vote to send this bill to the President's desk for his signature.