John Kerry

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. KERRY. Thank you. Mr. President, I believe that, by taking this away, providing we are vigilant and providing we all mean what we say, providing we are prepared to do what we ought to do in conscience, we will now begin to focus on the children of this country and we will begin to focus on the real work of how you put people to work. I believe that is the most important debate that the country can have and take away from it any demagoguery or artificiality that is placed in front of us about welfare or stereotypes with respect to it. I believe it is an important change. Yes, people ought to work. Hard-working American citizens should not be required to carry people. But we also have to be honest about the difficulties of some of our population trying to actually find that work. We should not hurt children. I want to spend every ounce of energy I have, Mr. President, on the floor of the Senate to stop the business of the Senate, if necessary, to guarantee that we fulfill that commitment as we judge how this works over the next months and years. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I ask for 1 additional minute.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. Last year, I voted for the bill that the Senate passed 87-12 that went to conference committee. The conference committee moved significantly back, so much so that the President saw fit to veto it. I voted for the bill that came back. I voted for the bill that went to the conference committee this year. I listened very carefully to the comments today of my colleagues about this bill that comes back from the conference committee. This bill that returns to the floor contains a number of important improvements from the bill that was vetoed last year. The agreement before us assures that almost all categories of citizens who are willing to work who are now eligible for Medicaid will continue to be eligible for health care in the future. The bill increases child care funding levels by $4 billion over that which was vetoed. It doesn't include the optional food stamp block grant, so our Nation will continue to have a national nutritional safety net that is below that which I think is necessary. The new bill also maintains the child care health and safety protections contained in the current law and reinstates a quality set-aside. Additionally, whereas the vetoed bill block granted administration and child-placement services funding, this bill before us retains the current law on child protection entitlement programs and services. And, finally, compared to the vetoed bill, this new bill increases the contingency fund from $1 billion to $2 billion to provide States with more protection during an economic downturn. Perhaps most important in the new bill is the child-support enforcement measures. These enormously significant changes will result in the most sweeping crackdown on deadbeat parents in history. As the President said yesterday, with this bill, we say to parents that if you don't pay the child support you owe, you are going to have your wages garnisheed, your driver's license taken away, and people will be chased across State lines and tracked, and, if necessary, people will have to work off what they owe. That is a monumental shift in attitude and culture; although, ultimately, I believe without equivocation, that we will have to go further toward a national system, because one-third of all child-support cases are interstate cases. The measures contained in this bill will dramatically improve the child-support system so children can get the support they need and deserve. Notwithstanding these good advances, Mr. President, I have also listened carefully to my colleagues on the floor, those who oppose it. There is not one of them who has not expressed legitimate concerns, legitimate fears. I respect those concerns and those fears, and I do not believe that there is one of them who does not want welfare change in this Nation. But I do believe we are voting today on a fundamental decision about change and what we are going to try to do. The fact is that we are really codifying what 40 States are already involved in, because there are waivers all across this land. And we are codifying something for a period of 5 years, a 5-year experiment, during which time, the 5 years, the full amount of time that people have before they would be cut off, will not have yet expired. We will be reconsidering it before that date comes. I believe that my colleagues who have cited problems that still remain with this bill are correct. But there is no way to a certainty, Mr. President, to say what the interaction will be with those who will go to work, those who will benefit from the increased minimum wage, those families that will benefit by increased purchasing power from the combination of work and minimum wage, and therefore less need for food stamps. There is no way to say to an absolute certainty what the impact of a new culture will be on children or the relationship of family. What we do know is that it will be new, and what we do know is that it carries risks. Mr. President, we also know some things to a certainty. I agree with the President and colleagues who come to the floor that, although we made great strides to maintain the fundamental nutritional safety net, we do cut deeper than necessary in this bill. And I am disappointed in the bill's provisions on legal immigrants. Legal immigrants are people who pay taxes, they can be drafted, and they are in this country completely legally. The harmful provisions that are in this bill have nothing to do with welfare reform. They are fundamentally a savings mechanism. I will do everything in my power, Mr. President, to see that we change those measures as rapidly as possible to adjust. But as the President said yesterday, immigrant families with children who fall on hard times through no fault of their own should be eligible for medical and other help when they need it. If you are mugged on a street corner or are in an accident or you get cancer or the same thing happens to your children, we are a society that should provide some assistance. I will do everything in my power to fight for that. Finally, I was also disappointed that we weren't able to have the vouchers for children as a matter of automatic. But, Mr. President, as I balance the equities of this bill, the need for change, against those things that we can remedy and against the experiment that is already taking place in this country, it is my belief that the bill before us will ultimately provide a leverage for change that will also change the dynamic of the debate in this country, and that is why, ultimately, I choose to vote for the change and choose to vote for this bill. For years now, the poverty rate for children has already been going up in America. We have the highest poverty rate of any industrial nation in the world. But when we come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to try to do something for children, we are told, well, now, wait a minute, their parents don't want to work, or it is the welfare system that created the problem. In fact, the welfare debate that has been so adequately distorted in so many regards obscures the real debate about children and about how you put people to work. Mr. President, I am convinced that by taking that off the table, we are, in fact, going to begin the real debate in this Nation today about how we adequately take care of those kids.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, in cosponsoring the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996. This bill takes another crucial step forward in repaying our debt to those who have served their country and are still suffering as a result of their service in Vietnam many years ago. In May, President Clinton announced that legislation would be proposed to aid Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from the disease spina bifida. This bill fulfills that commitment by recognizing and accepting natural responsibility for one of the serious health care needs of veterans' families that stem from the tragic effects of agent orange. Senator Daschle and 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. 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. 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 that suffering can be followed back to a service person's exposure to agent orange. After years of hard work, I believe we have reached an acceptable consensus on the effects of agent orange through numerous studies--and independent scientific reviews of the many studies--which have been made on the effects of this dangerous chemical that contains deadly dioxin. I might add that it has been 30 years since agent orange was sprayed in Vietnam and we must stop debating over the bias of each individual analyzing the information. As I said back in May of 1988, ``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.'' We have made great strides in reaching a consensus in some areas of health care for Vietnam veterans. 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 cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. Today, Mr. President, we are addressing a particularly heinous effect of agent orange--an effect that unfortunately will carry the legacy of the Vietnam war to yet another generation. The bill we are introducing 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. The National Academy of Sciences released a report in March of this year, citing new evidence supporting the link between exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in children of veterans who served in Vietnam. This report, Mr. President, warrants our action. Both the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, have asked that spina bifida in veterans' offspring be considered service connected. However, the VA currently does not have the authority to extend the health care and other related benefits to these children that they so greatly need. This bill will grant the VA the necessary authority to finally start providing needed care to these children who are suffering. Mr. President, these are children whose misery stems from physical damage caused to one of their parents who was fighting for this country in Vietnam. We should do no less than provide them with the care and treatment they need. We must not make some of the children of our Vietnam veterans the last victims of the Vietnam war. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, in cosponsoring the Agent Orange Benefits Act of 1996. This bill takes another crucial step forward in repaying our debt to those who have served their country and are still suffering as a result of their service in Vietnam many years ago. In May, President Clinton announced that legislation would be proposed to aid Vietnam veterans' children who suffer from the disease spina bifida. This bill fulfills that commitment by recognizing and accepting natural responsibility for one of the serious health care needs of veterans' families that stem from the tragic effects of agent orange. Senator Daschle and 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. 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. 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 that suffering can be followed back to a service person's exposure to agent orange. After years of hard work, I believe we have reached an acceptable consensus on the effects of agent orange through numerous studies--and independent scientific reviews of the many studies--which have been made on the effects of this dangerous chemical that contains deadly dioxin. I might add that it has been 30 years since agent orange was sprayed in Vietnam and we must stop debating over the bias of each individual analyzing the information. As I said back in May of 1988, ``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.'' We have made great strides in reaching a consensus in some areas of health care for Vietnam veterans. 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 cancer and acute and subacute peripheral neuropathy. Today, Mr. President, we are addressing a particularly heinous effect of agent orange--an effect that unfortunately will carry the legacy of the Vietnam war to yet another generation. The bill we are introducing 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. The National Academy of Sciences released a report in March of this year, citing new evidence supporting the link between exposure to agent orange and the occurrence of spina bifida in children of veterans who served in Vietnam. This report, Mr. President, warrants our action. Both the President and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, Jesse Brown, have asked that spina bifida in veterans' offspring be considered service connected. However, the VA currently does not have the authority to extend the health care and other related benefits to these children that they so greatly need. This bill will grant the VA the necessary authority to finally start providing needed care to these children who are suffering. Mr. President, these are children whose misery stems from physical damage caused to one of their parents who was fighting for this country in Vietnam. We should do no less than provide them with the care and treatment they need. We must not make some of the children of our Vietnam veterans the last victims of the Vietnam war. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. This is a good bill, Mr. President, responsibly and carefully assembled by the distinguished chairman, the ranking Democratic member, the subcommittee and its staff. I compliment them on their work and support its passage. Even so, Mr. President, due to the very difficult budget environment in which we are laboring, this bill does not do complete justice to what I believe are vital transportation infrastructure needs, a reality on which I believe I could find considerable agreement with the chairman and ranking member. For example, Massachusetts and other States need more funding for mass transit and passenger rail than the committee could provide. Federal funding for Amtrak has declined by approximately one-quarter since 1995. This year, the Senate bill appropriates $592 million for Amtrak for 1997 which is $130 million more than the House provided. I commend the committee for at least including this amount for Amtrak because the House's amount is a slow-motion death penalty. The capital- intensive nature of passenger rail makes it unlikely to survive as a viable transportation mode without some kind of Government support. And I do not know why we find that surprising. We heavily subsidize scheduled air travel, general aviation, and highways. It is entirely appropriate--and beneficial to our Nation--that we subsidize passenger rail. The United States still falls short among the nations of the world in per capita spending on passenger rail--behind such countries as Belarus, Botswana, and Guinea, not to mention the nations of Western Europe. It is my hope that the Senate position on funding for Amtrak will be sustained in the conference committee to resolve the differences between the bills passed by the House and the Senate. And as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, which has reported legislation to restructure Amtrak in order to place it on a path toward greater fiscal stability and accountability, I am very hopeful that we can enact reauthorization legislation before the end of the 104th Congress. I strongly support the Senate actions to fund the Northeast Corridor Improvement Project [NECIP] which is vital to reducing congestion in the corridor and which, in turn, will result in important environmental, energy and employment benefits. We must move ahead with track work, upgrading maintenance facilities and completion of the electrification of the northern section as soon as possible. The $200 million in funding this legislation provides for NECIP will enable this important work to move forward. Again, I urge the members of the Committee who will be conferees to insist on the Senate position on NECIP in the conference committee. I would like to express my gratitude to Chairman Hatfield and Ranking Member Lautenberg for their continuing and dependable support of NECIP. Another area of special importance to Massachusetts is mass transit. I cannot avoid being disappointed by this bill's funding level for mass transit operating assistance. Recent cuts in funding have had a devastating effect on mass transit systems in my State. In Massachusetts, statutory caps are imposed on the amount of funding transit authorities can receive from State and local sources. Therefore, cuts in Federal assistance have a direct, immediate, and unavoidable impact on service to seniors, workers and students in my State. Having voiced my concern, I do want to acknowledge that I realize this problem is not attributable to the will of the subcommittee, its chairman, or its ranking member. My constituents living and working in the Boston area are very appreciative for the funding included in the bill for the South Boston Piers Transitway, which is a critical component of the State Implementation Plan to comply with Clean Air Act requirements, and is anticipated to serve 22,000 riders daily. The transitway will be integrated with the extensive network of transit, commuter rail and bus service at South Station. I also appreciate support for the restoration of historic Union Station in Springfield, MA, which will allow for the consolidation of regional transportation services in western Massachusetts in a single intermodal facility for local bus lines, intercity bus systems, trains, taxis, and limousine service. The restoration of the facility will be accompanied by renovation of the facility to accommodate commercial tenancy. Also welcome is the committee's recommended funding for the development of the Cape Cod Intermodal Center which will accommodate intercity buses, regional buses, local shuttles, intercity trains, Amtrak summer tour trains, and bicyclists and will provide connections to the steamship authority's Hyannis terminal and to Barnstable Municipal Airport. Once again, I thank the chairman and ranking member, who have labored conscientiously and diligently to do as much good in the transportation arena for the Nation and its people as possible under the budget restrictions imposed on them. I also want to acknowledge with appreciation the work of the staff with whom I am familiar, Pat McCann, Peter Rogoff, and Anne Miano. I offer my strongest encouragement to the conferees the Senate will name to work out differences between the House-passed and Senate-passed bills. This is a good bill, and I fervently hope the conference agreement will contain its best features. It matters to the nation and its people in 1996, and it will matter in the future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I was pleased to join with Senator Wyden to cosponsor an amendment concerning an issue of great importance to a number of my constituents. Many of them have contacted me about the 1994 Swift Rail Development Act [SRDA]. As you know, the SRDA allows for Federal preemption of local train whistle bans so that all trains would begin sounding their whistles one-quarter mile before reaching any grade crossing. My home State of Massachusetts has 88 grade crossings in some 27 communities whose whistle bans would be preempted by this law. Many of these communities have good safety record: From January 1988 through June 1994, the Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] noted 34 accidents involving one fatality and 15 injuries at these crossings. Some of these communities are strongly opposed to Federal preemption of their whistle bans. Their concerns were not allayed by FRA officials at a meeting that took place in Beverly on October 25, 1995 to discuss the SRDA. A member of my staff reported that many who attended desired outright repeal of the SRDA. As Christopher Smallhorn of Beverly Farms wrote: I doubt your representative will transmit to you the feeling of frustration and anger taken away by those taxpayers attending the meeting. A sampling of my correspondence from other constituents reveals that others share Mr. Smallhorn's concerns. John J. Evans from Beverly Farms wrote: This proposed new regulation * * * will render my home uninhabitable as my house sits between two grade crossings. Fay Senner wrote: The safety at these railway crossings is a local issue and one that we have been able to manage effectively in the 150 years that railroads have been a part of life in Acton. Scott and Sharon Marlow of Andover wrote: My daughter was born with a cardiac muscle defect and I do not even want to think about the anguish loud whistle blasts would have caused my family or any other family with a heart condition. William C. Mullin, chairman of the Acton Board of Selectmen, wrote: If train whistles once again pierce the peace and quiet of our community, the anger of our residents will be quickly felt. Richard and Nancy Silva of Beverly wrote: The horn blowing will change the value of our home and add more stress in an already stressful environment. Diane M. Allen, chairman of the Wilmington Board of Selectmen, wrote: We do not wish to have the Federal government set unjustifiable standards for our local roads nor do we want those decisions of our duly elected officials to be overridden by the Federal government. Nevertheless, the safety of railroad grade crossings is clearly a real issue, as the October 1995 school bus accident in Illinois sadly illustrates. The FRA has released a study showing that accidents occurred at fewer than 6 percent of the Nation's grade crossings where whistle bans are in effect. A one-size-fits-all approach is therefore not appropriate. I am thus proud to cosponsor this amendment, which contains a more sensible strategy for dealing with this issue, and I compliment the Senator from Oregon and his staff for bringing it before the Senate. Knowing the impact that the SRDA is having on communities and constituents in both Massachusetts and other States, I look forward to working with the FRA and my colleagues to ensure the safety of grade crossings without hurting the quality of life in our communities. I urge my colleagues to join in supporting the amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I supported the motion to table the Bryan amendment to S. 1936 not because it included a requirement that the Department of Energy comply with the National Environmental Policy Act [NEPA] in the establishment of an interim storage facility at the Nevada nuclear test site--language which I support--but because it also included unjustifiably sweeping judicial review language. While I support judicial review of all final agency actions, this provision goes well beyond final rulemakings and would be unnecessarily burdensome and costly to both the Federal Government and the private sector. In my judgment, should this bill become law over my objections, this judicial review could cause the entire process of establishing the repository to grind to a halt. Congress passed NEPA in 1969 to ensure that Federal agencies integrate environmental values--as well as social, economic, and technical factors--in the decisionmaking process. Section 102 of NEPA requires environmental impact statements [EIS] for proposed major Federal actions which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The EIS process includes alternatives analysis in which reasonable alternatives to the proposed action are explored in an effort to present clear choices to decisionmakers and the public, and to ensure that the most environmentally sound course of action is taken. S. 1936 limits or eliminates the application of a number of NEPA's health and environmental standards with respect to the establishment of a temporary waste repository. For example, in order to expedite the interim repository's opening it waives any regulations for the protection of public health and the environment if the regulations would delay or affect the development, licensing, construction or operation of the interim storage facility. I strongly believe that any facility in the United States designed to store spent nuclear fuel should be required to comply with NEPA. Therefore, I wholeheartedly support the first half of the Bryan amendment which instructs the Secretary of Energy to comply with all NEPA requirements. My concern with the Bryan amendment stems from its language which would add sweeping judicial review provisions to this bill. It would subject to judicial review any agency action relating to the development or implementation of the integrated management system. I firmly support judicial review for all final agency actions. However, I am concerned that including any and all agency actions, not just final actions, may produce innumerable interlocutory judgments. The cost to taxpayers likely would be very high, and the repository to be established under the terms of this bill likely would be drowned in a sea of redtape. That is not in our Nation's best interests despite the capable efforts of the Senators from Nevada to do everything in their power to prevent or delay the establishment and operation of a repository in their State. Once our Government makes a decision to establish a repository for nuclear wastes which is badly needed--although I do not believe we are ready to make that decision with the confidence we should have for a step of this consequence--we should not deliberately set up the effort to fail by tying it in legal and procedural knots. It appears unlikely that any additional amendments to this bill will be offered or approved that would restore the applicability of NEPA provisions. Therefore, because the legislation exempts the repository establishment process from the application of NEPA and other environmental statutes, I will oppose final passage of S. 1936. I am hopeful this bill in its current form will not be enacted. The President has said he will veto it in this form, and I would urge him to do so. But, Mr. President, I wish to emphasize that I do not take this stance with enthusiasm. Our Nation needs a repository for nuclear waste. We should not continue ad infinitum to store it temporarily at the sites where it has been produced. That is neither safe nor prudent. Our Government needs to redouble its efforts to reach a conclusion about the establishment of a permanent repository, and it needs to do that with alacrity. Unfortunately, this legislation to create a temporary repository is not the answer. Establishing a temporary facility necessarily brings difficult problems that would not be present with a permanent facility. Exempting the facility and the process of establishing it from environmental laws and safeguards is unacceptable. It is not inconceivable, even if quite unlikely, that these problems can be remedied this year in a way that would permit me to support this legislation. The first requirement is that the process be subjected to compliance with environmental laws and regulations. This could be accomplished in a conference committee. If it is not, I will continue to oppose it. But if its flaws are not adequately repaired, and the bill either is not finally passed by the Congress or is vetoed by the President, the 105th Congress needs to begin grappling early and seriously with this matter. I hope when it does so, Mr. President, that it will take a different and more responsible course than has been taken in the current Congress. Section 101(g)

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every day, the working families of Massachusetts have to make tough choices about what they can afford, how to pay the rent, or whether they can send their kids to college. The Federal budget deficit, while reduced considerably due to President Clinton s leadership and the courage of the Democratic- controlled Congress in 1993, is still over $100 billion a year. We absolutely must get a grip and bring the Federal Government's expenditures within its means. Like families in Massachusetts, I have been working in the U.S. Senate to make the tough choices concerning our Federal budget. In 1994, I successfully led the fight to eliminate funding for the dangerous advanced liquid metal reactor. Last year, I stood with Senators McCain, Feingold, and Thompson in an effort to cut $60 billion in corporate welfare programs to get rid of wasteful Federal spending and reduce the deficit. Today, I am proud to continue that fight as a cosponsor of Senator McCain's legislation to cut one of the biggest examples of corporate pork, the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program. This program has already spent over $200 million of taxpayer money to improve the designs of nuclear power plants that nobody in this country wants. There is no demand for more nuclear power plants in the United States. No utility has bought a nuclear power plant since Richard Nixon was President. This program is the definition of corporate pork. The three companies which received the majority of funding for this program had a combined profit of $80 billion last year. It is unconscionable for the Federal Government to subsidize the research and development budgets of these companies when we cannot sufficiently fund our schools or put enough cops on the beat to make our communities safe. In 1992, the Congress funded research for this project for 5 years ending in 1996. Now proponents of the advanced light water reactor say that they need 3 more years of funding to finish the designs that no one wants. This is just corporate pork and it has to be stopped now. Proponents of this program cite China as a prime market for the design despite the fact that it is illegal to sell China this technology. Proponents also argue that corporations are going to repay the Federal Government for its investment in the Advanced Light Water Reactor Program once they receive orders for these new plants. However, General Electric has already canceled part of this project because it is not commercially viable. For all these reasons the advanced light water reactor must be stopped.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I yield back whatever time remains to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, before I explain my amendment I thank the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Senator Hatfield, for his extraordinary, long involvement in an effort to help educate and lead the U.S. Senate to a more rational approach to this question of proliferation, nuclear and conventional. When he leaves the Senate there will be an enormous gap with respect to that leadership and his voice, always clear even with laryngitis. I also welcome Senator Dorgan, whose history is not as long, but whose commitment is equally as passionate. I look forward to working with him in the future. Their amendment embodies a fundamental shift in the way the United States needs to deal with the transfer of conventional weapons to the rest of the world. Like so many other aspects of our national security today, arms sales and other military assistance needs still to be adjusted to the realities of the post-cold-war world. The central theme of our foreign policy has changed from containment of communism to expansion of democracy. So we no longer need to send these massive amounts of weaponry to our surrogates around the world in an arms race against communism. Instead, we need to evaluate the effect that arms transfers have on regional stability, on the promotion of democracy, and on the protection of human rights. The legislation in front of us seeks to do that. It makes democracy, human rights, and nonaggression the central criteria for decisions on arms transfers. But equally important, it forces the U.S. Congress to take responsibility for approving such transfers to countries that do not meet the criteria set forth in the legislation. Under the present system, the President just makes a determination of which countries will receive what weapons. In theory, the Congress could act to disapprove a specific sale, but in practice we all know it is very difficult and extremely rare that happens. We ought to be more involved as a Congress in making these decisions. This legislation gives us a prominent role that is appropriate to the money that we spend on behalf of the taxpayers and to the interests we represent in the world. There still will be cases when it serves the interests of our country to transfer arms to countries that do not meet the criteria of this legislation. But in those cases, the Congress will have to agree with the President that such a transfer bolsters United States national security needs. These changes in this legislation will focus congressional attention on the question of what really serves our interests and will, I hope, lead to a reduction in the extraordinarily dangerous worldwide proliferation of conventional weapons. My amendment seeks to simply add one new section to this language. It instructs the President to expand the international efforts to curb worldwide arms sales and to work toward establishing a multilateral regime to govern the transfer of conventional weapons. The amendment also requires the President to report annually to the Congress on steps that he is taking to gain international acceptance of the principles incorporated in this legislation and on the progress he is making toward establishing a permanent multilateral structure for controlling arms shipments. I support the goals of this legislation, Mr. President. We ought to stop selling arms to nations, but the fact is that it is not just enough for us to set that example. The French, the Germans, Chinese, the Japanese, a host of other countries will rush in to fill the vacuum that we leave. What we need to do is create an international effort with our leadership that will provide the underlying force for this amendment and to guarantee that we do reduce arms proliferation in the world and slow the conventional arms race of which we are currently the leader. I thank the distinguished Senators from Oregon and North Dakota for their leadership, and I believe that my amendment is acceptable. If so, we can act on it immediately. Mr. President, I believe there is no further debate. If the Chair is ready, we can act on this amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk for immediate consideration. I assume that will not come up in time----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we had a unanimous-consent agreement a few moments ago, allowing for the second-degree to be reported at such time as we deemed appropriate. I ask unanimous consent at this time I be permitted to submit my second-degree amendment, under the 5 minutes I have.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I will take a few minutes to speak to that amendment. I will not spend a lot of time on it. I strongly oppose the amendment of the Senator from New Hampshire but respect his concern about it. I commend to my colleagues that I think the concern expressed by the Senator from New Hampshire is misplaced in this particular instance, and that the real interests of the United States are to continue forward in helping to build a legal code and trade code in Vietnam that is based on our notions and precepts about both the legal systems and trade. Mr. President, the Senator from New Hampshire argues that we should not go forward with this legal program--legal reform program in Vietnam, which is what it is--because he says Vietnam is in violation of the Brooke amendment. The Brooke amendment is an amendment that limits U.S. aid to countries that are in default to the United States on money owed. The default that he is referring to is a default that goes back to the question of debt emanating from the war, back in the 1960's. Indeed, the United States and Vietnam have already had a number of rounds of negotiations on this debt. The debt does exist. I am not suggesting it does not. However, Vietnam has agreed in principle to pay the debt. It is a debt that has been owed to us from the time that certain property was expropriated during the war. The debt is about $150 million in total. As I say, they have agreed to pay that debt, with the exception of about an $8 million amount that remains in discussion over the question of USDA loans. So, Mr. President, we have really resolved the major part of the issues with respect to this total debt. In addition to that, we have, in the past, on a number of different occasions, waived the Brooke amendment when it has been in the national interest to do so. We waived the Brooke amendment with respect to narcotics assistance in Colombia, with respect to Peru and Bolivia, for development assistance for Tanzania, for other African countries, and also for Nicaragua. Mr. President, the Brooke amendment is not really what is at issue here. The issue is, Do we or do we not want to move forward with improving our ability to have a legal system in Vietnam that is based on our notions and precepts of what the law is and means, and do we want to have a trade regimen that meets the needs of our companies and the rest of the world in trying to do business with Vietnam which moves toward Western values and goals? Mr. President, a number of years ago, I created the Fulbright Exchange Program for Vietnam. We are now in the fifth year of that program, and it has been an enormous success. We brought Vietnamese academics, officials, and others to the United States. We have trained them in some of the best schools, some of our best economic institutions, as well as some of our legal institutions. I think we are now at a point where we are seeing many American professors in law and trade and economics going to Vietnam and teaching in Vietnam. So to suddenly take out of this bill a very small amount of money that is geared to trying to increase the ability to reform the legal system and economic structure of Vietnam would literally be to turn our backs on 30-plus years of aspirations with respect to that country. We are trying to do now, peacefully, what we invested 58,000-plus American lives to do during a 10-year war. It just does not make sense to turn away from the legal reform program that would be created by this bill, which is the logical, needed follow-on to the Fulbright program. Vietnam wants our help in developing its legal code. What an extraordinary thing. What a great opportunity. For us now to suggest that is not a more peaceful and sensible way of approaching the process of changing a system of values and cultural--I do not know what is better than that. It seems to me that, recognizing that the full debt has been accepted in principle, the only contentious issue within the debt is $8 million of USDA money, it would simply be wrong to turn our backs on these 5 years of progress. I hope my colleagues will join in opposing this amendment and in affirming that it is in our interest to continue to invest in the legal and economic reform of Vietnam and to bring Vietnam into the world community with respect to trade laws and regulations, property laws and rights, and all of the means of accountability for those companies that are or will be doing business in Southeast Asia. I yield the floor. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the pending amendment?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is nothing more important to this debate today than constantly reminding ourselves that our focus ought to be this Nation's children and their well-being. That was the focus when, under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership over 60 years ago, title IV-A of the Social Security Act was originally enacted. As we proceed in this debate about children--and it is a debate about children because over two-thirds of current welfare recipients indeed are children--their interests should be uppermost in our minds. There is no disagreement that I can find in this Chamber, and very, very little across the Nation, that our welfare system needs reform. Despite what on the part of many who have been involved in legislating, implementing, and administering the existing welfare program is good faith and intentions, that welfare system has been buffeted by the forces of society and culture; for far too many it offers little real help or incentives for movement toward self-sufficiency. Instead, for far too many, it has become at best an indifferent means of providing a bare subsistence income. In many ways, our world and our Nation are very different places than when the original Federal welfare program was established in the thirties. The objective, Mr. President, ought to be the same. But the means must be adjusted. The objective is to prevent human misery, to give Americans, especially children, a helping hand when they otherwise face destitution and poverty. A handout may once have functioned with considerable effectiveness to help those in poverty toward that objective. Now we understand the importance of child care, training, work search assistance, health care, and other ingredients if families are to move toward self-sufficiency. We know that 15.3 million children in this Nation live in poverty. This means that 21.8 percent of our children--over one in five children--are impoverished. In Massachusetts, there are more than 176,000 in this category. 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 in central cities where 6.9 million of them reside. The other point on which we can agree, because it is a fact rather than an opinion, is that the child poverty rate in this Nation is currently dramatically higher than the rate in other major industrialized nations. 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 our rate--6.5 percent, and the rate in Denmark--3.3 percent--is about one-sixth our rate. We know that poverty is bad for children. This for many would qualify as a truism, but perhaps others require to be shown. Nobel Prize- winning economist Robert Solow and the Children's Defense Fund recently conducted the first-ever study of the 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 in the United States 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. Mr. President, the way in which the Republicans who control both the Senate and the House of Representatives repeatedly have attempted to reform welfare is not what I believe this Nation wants or believes is the proper way, the best way, or the moral way to address poverty and millions of families that are not self-sufficient in our late 20th century society. A number of the components of Republican co-called welfare reform proposals, even charitably, can best be described as punitive, or budget driven. I simply recoiled as I reviewed proposals, for example, to eliminate the access of children to health care. I shook my head in disbelief as I read provisions that would deny food stamps--and very probably a minimally nutritious diet--to children whose parents in some cases have made unacceptable choices, no matter how misguided and unacceptable they are. But we are faced here, in the institution that has been elected by the people of the United States to make the Nation's major policy decisions and to design its major government interactions with those people, with the necessity to work together to produce change. Either we struggle successfully to reach some kind of middle ground which a majority can accept, or we do nothing at all. Surely, in welfare as in all other areas, there are those who so fear change--for any of a host of reasons--that they prefer the status quo. I do not believe the status quo best serves this Nation and its people. I do not believe the status quo best serves this Nation's future. And I do not believe the status quo best serves those who are the unfortunate, the impoverished, the destitute, the left out in our Nation. Democrats have labored mightily to turn a punitive bill into one that will work, one that would be desirable for the country. I was personally involved in that effort. Last week, I offered an amendment that the Senate approved by voice vote which makes what I believe to be an important change. In keeping with my belief that we must keep our eye on the ball as we legislate--and that objective in this case is to reduce poverty and increase the self-sufficiency of America's poor families--my amendment provides that if a State's child poverty rate increase by 5 percent, then the State must file a corrective action plan with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If States can-- as they and the Republican authors of this bill fervently maintain they can--achieve economies of scale never realized when the program was overseen by the Federal Government, and successfully refocus the program on moving the family heads in welfare families and other impoverished families toward self-sufficiency, then child poverty should decrease. More children, and more families, will be better off if this new approach works. But if that is not the outcome--if child poverty increases, then my amendment will require States to confront that reality and to adjust in an attempt to meet the program's objectives. I and many others will be watching extremely closely to see how the program works, and to see how this adjustment mechanism I authored functions. And if neither the program nor the adjustment mechanism functions acceptably, I will be the first to fight to devise a new approach. Ultimately, if we are sending Federal money to the States to combat poverty, we must demand that poverty recede. When I came to the Senate floor this morning, I was gravely concerned that the democratic process, as it often will, had produced an unacceptable product. Despite the addition of my amendment and some amendments by others, this bill still tore huge holes in the safety net. Today, repair stitches were made in two of the most distressing of these holes. The Senate voted to maintain the current eligibility standards for Medicaid, ensuring that those who now qualify for medical assistance, including those who do so by virtue of their eligibility for the welfare program the legislation would abolish, will continue to qualify for medical assistance. The repair made by the Chafee-Breaux amendment was of great importance. The Senate also voted to preserve the Food Stamp Program as a Federal assistance program that will be available to all Americans on the basis of the same income and assets limits that now apply. That means the Food Stamp Program will continue to operate as a safety net on a national basis, ensuring that, at the very least, Americans can eat-- and that the assistance will fluctuate as it must based on economic conditions across the Nation. The Department of Agriculture had estimated that, if the block grant originally proposed in this legislation had been in place during the last national recession, 8.3 million fewer children would have been served by the program. Under this bill, not only would they not have had food stamps, many of them would have had no welfare either. Where would they have been, Mr. President? Fortunately, we stitched up this hole today. When I cast my vote for final passage, I will be very mindful of these critical changes today. I also will be mindful of the fact that this bill was in several ways better than the welfare reform legislation that the Senate passed last fall. This bill includes nearly $4 billion more for day care for the children of parents required to find and hold jobs. It includes a $2 billion contingency fund to help States as they try to help what inevitably will be a growing number of impoverished people when recessions hit, as they unquestionably will. I also will be acutely mindful, Mr. President, of the limits to which I am willing to go with this experiment called for by President Clinton during the 1992 Presidential campaign and endorsed by the Republican Party in the 1994 congressional elections. Ideally, this bill will be improved and strengthened in conference committee. That is certainly possible if the President, who has been very quiet when asked how he believes this bill must be augmented, will clearly enunciate what he believes to be essential ingredients if he is to sign welfare reform legislation into law. I maintain hope that we can provide vouchers that will continue to provide basic human necessities for children whose parents hit the lifetime assistance limit imposed by this bill. I also hope that the cutoff of legal immigrants will be rethought and at the very least made less severe. The President can and I hope will lead the way in both these matters and others. At the very least, Mr. President, there must not be reversion or erosion in this legislation. We must not see retrenchment with regard to those few hard-won improvements that make this bill a marginally acceptable risk. It is time for an experiment that we hope will improve the lives and opportunities of millions of families and their children. It is not time to take frightful risks with those lives, based on a groundless faith that harsh discipline will remedy all social ills. I must serve notice that if the legislation that returns for final Senate approval increases those risks, I will oppose it. If this bill becomes law, Mr. President, no one should prepare to relax. We have much, much more to do and this is only the opening chapter. As this new picture unfolds, I will be watching intently--and I will not be alone--to be certain that our efforts and resources have a positive effect on children and families, and that they have real opportunities to realize their potential as human beings. That is the objective we seek, and it is on reaching that objective that we must insist.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my friend from Nevada, Senator Bryan, in another attempt to save American taxpayers from funding U.S. corporate advertising in other countries. The Market Promotion Program is one of the most blatant examples of corporate welfare in the budget--the American taxpayers have footed a bill of more than $1 billion to pay for corporate advertising since its inception. And Senator Bryan and I have been as tenacious as it is possible to be in trying to eliminate this program. This is a subsidy program which has been roundly criticized by research institutes across the political and economic spectrum--the National Taxpayers' Union, the Progressive Policy Institute, Citizens Against Government Waste, and Cato Institute. Taxpayers in Massachusetts would be shocked if they knew that the Federal Government is collecting taxes from them and using their hard- earned money to embellish the advertising budgets of corporate America. I have taken to the floor time and time again to speak about wasteful spending in the budget. And I have been an outspoken critic of this Market Promotion Program. Our colleagues have heard me discuss how we have paid the Gallo Bros. to peddle their wine to the French; how we helped advertise Japanese-made underwear in Tokyo; how we promoted fashion shows of mink coats and fur stoles; how we have subsidized M&M's and Chicken McNuggets. We have tried to reform the MPP program over the past few years. Last year, we prohibited the mink industry from receiving Federal subsidies to promote fashion shows abroad. That was a step in the right direction. And, Mr. President, I am very pleased the distinguished chairman of the Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee, Senator Cochran, has agreed to exclude mink subsidies in this year's bill. In addition, Mr. President, last year, in the Department of Agriculture appropriations bill, the Senate voted to curb the Market Promotion Program--we passed the Bryan-Bumpers-Kerry amendment to limit the program to small businesses and agricultural co-ops. This was a good start to curb corporate welfare, but the provision was dropped in conference. So, the program continues despite the Senate's vote. Accordingly, my friend from Nevada, Senator Bryan, and I are making the effort once again to halt this unnecessary flow of funds from the Treasury. We must not force American taxpayers to keep subsidizing multimillion- dollar corporations. When my friends and neighbors in Massachusetts measure this program against the extraordinary reductions we are facing in programs that really matter to working Americans, they ask me how Congress can continue to justify this type of corporate welfare. There is no good answer to that question. This program is unjustifiable in the current budget environment. Mr. President, I am grateful Senator Bryan is willing to lead the charge. Together, we will continue to fight this waste of taxpayer money until this program is eliminated. We fought the wool and mohair subsidy, and that is now gone. We fought the mink subsidy, and that is now gone. Ultimately, we will win this battle, too, because the Senate will recognize that it is a monumental waste of money. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleagues.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the welfare bill before us today 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, let's be sure that child poverty does not increase. This amendment, which I introducing with Senator Murray, says that if child poverty increases in a State after the date of enactment of this welfare bill, that State would be required to submit a corrective action plan. There is nothing more important to this debate 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. Let me acknowledge right up front that this amendment will be subject to a point of order under the Byrd rule and will require 60 votes to pass. I want to say to my Republican colleagues that it is outrageous that we are debating welfare reform under budget reconciliation rules. We should not be considering such major changes affecting millions of children and families and cutting more than $60 billion from human service programs under budget rules that make almost any substantive amendment out of order. There is no reason to debate welfare reform under budget reconciliation except for the majority to make it significantly harder to make any changes to this bill, even changes supported by a majority of members. But despite this unreasonable hurdle erected by the majority party, we must attempt to remedy problems in the bill. What does this amendment do? This amendment 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 amendment 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 amendment simply says that if a State's welfare system increases child poverty, that State must take corrective action. Mr. President, there are many very different views of welfare in this Chamber. But 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 one in five 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 Prize-winning 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 amendment, 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 also want to say that I hope that our extremist colleagues on the House side do not ultimately prevail again in conference. This effort to reform welfare should not be scuttled by a conference report they call welfare reform but that children will only know as their ticket to empty stomachs and hopelessness. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Roth and his staff, Senator Moynihan and his staff, and Senator Exon and his staff for their assistance and their willingness to accept this amendment that I believe will benefit children across the Nation. Mr. President, as we know, the child poverty rate in the United States is dramatically higher than that in other industrial countries. It is in our obvious interest, in whatever we do with respect to welfare reform, that whatever we do here not increase that rate. This seeks, by agreement on both sides, to simply measure where we are today with respect to child poverty and, if there is an ascertainable difference as a consequence of the measures of this act that increases it, then the Secretary of Health and Human Services has the ability to ask that particular State to come up with a remedy. There is no forced remedy. There is no mandate. It is simply a requirement to try to deal with the obvious negative consequences or unintended consequence of anything we might do here.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up my amendment on child poverty which was submitted earlier tonight. I ask unanimous consent this amendment be modified in a manner that has been agreed to by both sides. I send the modification to the desk.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to Cmdr. John Jaskot of the U.S. Coast Guard who has served as the Coast Guard liaison to the Senate for the past 3 years and who will retire this month from the service after a distinguished 20-year career. John, or J.J. as he is better known, has done an outstanding job in his role of Senate liaison and has honored himself and the Coast Guard with his dedication and devotion to duty. A graduate of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy and George Washington University Law School, J.J. has served commendably as the conduit between the Senate and the Coast Guard when Coast Guard-related legislation was under development and when difficult problems involving the Coast Guard were being dealt with by Members of the Senate. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to serve as the ranking Democratic member of the subcommittee responsible for Senate oversight of the Coast Guard, the Senate Commerce Committee's Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. It is from this position that my staff and I have had the pleasure to work on a continual basis with Commander Jaskot and the Coast Guard. Therefore, I know firsthand that J.J. is a professional who deservedly prides himself on being a responsive and efficient problem solver. His comprehensive knowledge of Coast Guard law and programs has been extremely valuable to the Senate. Coast Guard issues in general are nonpartisan and the Nation's oldest continuous maritime service enjoys support from both sides of the aisle. During his tenure, Commander Jaskot has been successful in continuing this bipartisan collegiality. After an exemplary career and service to our country, J.J. is now retiring. His departure will be a loss to both the Coast Guard and the Senate, but I am sure that his family will be the ones to gain as they will see much more of him than they saw in the past 3 years. I am pleased for them--and pleased for him in this respect. As he leaves the Senate and the Coast Guard, I join everyone who has had the pleasure to work with John Jaskot during his time in the Senate in wishing him well in whatever follows his Coast Guard service. Doubtlessly, he will have opportunities to do other useful and valuable work even as he spends more time with his family. Good luck, Cmdr. John J. Jaskot, and thank you for a job well done.