John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate will take up the Right to Work Act. This legislation hurts union members by giving nonmembers a free ride to get union-negotiated benefits without contributing their fair share--or any money at all--to defray the costs. By repealing parts of the National Labor Relations Act and the Railway Labor Act which give each State the right to determine whether union security agreements should be permissible in that State, this bill would make such agreements unlawful in all States. Mr. President, this is bad public policy. Currently, the National Labor Relations Act allows States to prohibit union security clauses but does not preempt State law if a State chooses to allow such agreements. That permits employers and unions to agree, if they wish, that employees will be required to give financial support to the union. My State of Massachusetts has chosen to permit such agreements, and workers are the beneficiaries. What the workers in my State of Massachusetts get from this is higher wages, greater benefits which protect them and their families, and a higher standard of living. This bill unfairly tilts the playing field in favor of employers and against labor unions. Under Federal law, the union is responsible for representing employees in the bargaining unit even if they pay nothing toward the union's expenses. Under right-to-work legislation, these employees get union-negotiated higher wages and benefits as well as union representation during grievance proceedings without contributing a dime. Giving nonmembers a free ride to get union-negotiated benefits without contributing to defray the costs is unfair, and in the long run will weaken the ability of unions to obtain favorable wages and benefits for all workers in a unionized company. Republicans are insisting on preempting State law despite the fact that only 21 States have seen fit to enact right-to-work laws since they were deemed lawful, 18 of these prior to 1959. And just last year legislatures in six States, Colorado, Maryland, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oklahoma, defeated statewide right-to-work bills. It is noteworthy that three of these are Republican-controlled legislatures. Mr. President, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to force their sense of judgment and propriety on my State of Massachusetts and take away a free choice that my State ought to have and has always had. Simply speaking, if a State does not want right-to- work laws then these laws should not be imposed on it because some people here in the Senate more greatly value their own judgment on this issue than they do the judgment of the people of Massachusetts. I might point out that most of the Senators voting to do this voted against raising the minimum wage yesterday. This goes too far, Mr. President. The Republicans' decision to couple the right-to-work bill--which has never been subject to hearings or markup--with the TEAM Act underscores their true disinterest in helping working Americans. And as they decry the role of big government in the lives of working Americans, the Republicans go ahead and tell the people of Massachusetts that they know better, that they know what the people of Lowell or Lawrence or Springfield or Boston or Hyannis want. Right-to-work laws have not brought economic bonanzas to States that have adopted them. Not 1 of the 21 right-to-work States has a pay level above the national average and not 1 ranks in the top 15 States for annual workers' pay. This bill ought to be called the right-to-work- for-less bill. Union security clauses are negotiated by a democratically elected union and the employer. Coming on the heels of Independence Day, opposing this bill is the right thing to do for the American worker, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 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 result in approximately $11 million in penalties. This situation arises from an IRS misinterpretation of Tax Code provisions as they applied to crew members on small fishing vessels. The IRS's interpretation and assessment is potentially devastating to the fishing families in southeastern Massachusetts--a region already struggling with the departure of the textile industry and the demise of the fishing industry. I am pleased that the managers amendment to H.R. 3448 includes a section clarifying the application of this disputed provision and making the original intention of the Congress clear with respect to it. I have worked on this issue for many years along with the senior Senator from Massachusetts as well as colleagues in the other body, especially Congressman Barney Frank, Congressman Gerry Studds and Congressman Richard Neal. Mr. President, today the Senate is providing relief for four fishing vessels in New Bedford--F/V Edgartown, F/V Nordic Pride, F/V Lady J, F/ V Seel--by rendering moot a court action against them. Central to the case is the question of whether crewmembers on small fishing vessels are considered self-employed or employees for tax purposes. The pay of employees is subject to withholding of Federal income tax while payment to persons who are self-employed is not subject to withholding. 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 this unique 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 in fishing communities 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 and amount to approximately $500 annually based on a $30,000 income. In 1977, the IRS issued Ruling 77-102 which stated that a pers payment would subject the entire salary of the pers recipient to withholding. In response, the industry initiated a sliding scale per that ranged from $24.50 to $25.50 depending on the catch. The IRS did not question this practice until 1988 when the Service suddenly issued an unexpected interpretation of the pers payment and ruled retroactively that the entire salaries of crewmembers receiving pers were subject to withholding. The IRS ruling means that much of the New Bedford fleet does not qualify for the small fishing vessel treatment on withholding and therefore each boat owner owed the IRS large amounts in back withholding for the fishermen who worked on them. As a result, IRS placed liens on property and is poised to begin enforced collections from the boat owners which will be devastating to the New Bedford fishing industry as it struggles to survive until the groundfish stocks recover. This bill will permit 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. The vessel owners paid the crew the amounts the IRS now claims should have been withheld, and the crewmembers, as contractors, were individually responsible for paying taxes due on those payments. To assess these boat owners now would be grossly unfair and will have the effect of sinking the New Bedford fleet. Those of us trying to remedy this situation have been working for a solution for 7 years. We have appealed to the Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service, and introduced legislation that was vetoed twice by President Bush. Today, we are working against the clock as the Court of Appeals will soon hear the vessel owners appeal if this provision of H.R. 3448 is not enacted into law. Mr. President, this has been a long and difficult struggle to provide relief for the fishing families of New Bedford. I am pleased we are on the cusp of victory. Until the bill is signed by President Clinton, I will continue to fight for these hard-working families in southeastern Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you very much. I thank the Senator from New York. Mr. President, let me address some of the concerns that were just raised by the Senator in Utah. The facts show that through the years, there may be individual instances where there is a tailoff in the numbers of teenagers who might be hired by a particular company but, broadly speaking, the number of teenagers who are helped by the increase in the wage is much greater. The fact is that any company that requires a certain amount of work to be done is going to pay somebody a wage to do that work that they want to get done. They are not just hiring teenagers as a matter of altruism. Generally speaking, we in the U.S. Congress have recognized our responsibility to make up for that gap so that teenagers have the very opportunity that the Senator from Utah talks about. That is why historically we have had a Summer Jobs Program, until our Republican friends in recent years have seen fit to zero it out--zero it out. The basic issue here remains the same: What are we willing to give in America as the value of an hour's work? We decided that in the late 1930's, and under every President since then, Republican or Democrat alike, with Republican votes and Democratic votes--we have raised the minimum wage. And with what impact, Mr. President? With the impact that unemployment has gone down and the wages of more Americans have at least come up closer to the poverty level. My friend from Texas earlier said we should not monkey with supply and demand. But this is the same Senator who is down here voting to preserve the wool and mohair subsidy. If that is not monkeying with supply and demand, not to mention all of the pages in here of different tax provisions, subchapter S provisions, depreciation allowances--we monkey with it every single day. The question is, For what social purpose do we do that? The fundamental issue before the U.S. Senate is, for people who work hard and play by the rules, do they deserve a raise? Not a handout--a helping hand up, yes, but not a handout. The way you send that message is to value the work with a living wage. We have done that before, Democrats and Republicans alike. We have raised the minimum wage closer to the poverty line, not a great level, but that is what we feel we can do in the best balance against job loss and other market forces. I acknowledge there are market forces. We do not want to monkey with the level that is so high that you would, in fact, generate enormous unemployment. But the proposed increase would not put our country in danger of reaching that level. In Vermont and Massachusetts, we raised the minimum wage at the beginning of this year. New Hampshire and New York refused to raise the minimum wage. Unemployment in Massachusetts and Vermont went down. Unemployment in New York went up and New Hampshire went up. Mr. President, it is clear historically that raising the minimum wage may create minor dislocations. My friend talks about one company laying off five people in this article in the New York Times. Five people who are kids, teenagers at the minimum wage, let's say 8 weeks of employment, if they take some time off in the summer, is $288. So we are now being told that a company is going to deny a teenager $288 for 8 weeks of work. It is hard for me to believe that if that job was necessary, that company is not going to produce enough product or sell enough goods to make up $288 for a teenager to work. What we need is a little more ethic in America where our corporations understand an obligation to try to hire teenagers, to try to pay people a decent wage. We know the statistics. We are living in a country that now has the third highest number of poor children since 1964. Two-thirds of the people on the minimum wage are adults, not teenagers, and most of them are women. In my State of Massachusetts, almost 5 percent of the children in Massachusetts live in families where at least one parent works full-time but the family still lives below the poverty line. Nationally, more than 2 million children live in families which would get a raise if the minimum wage is increased to $5.15 an hour. The question is, should these children and their families get an increase in the minimum wage, and should the Congress fill the gap to help those teenagers have a summer job? Then everybody benefits correctly and we do not create a Hobson's choice of denying both of them everything: No summer jobs and no minimum wage, and the country can get poorer together. That is really what we are talking about here. We have heard this argument year in and year out. We keep hearing it: ``Oh, if you raise the minimum wage, America isn't going to get stronger.'' From 1938 to now, look at the number of jobs we have created, look at the increased strength in America, look at the stock market go up. Last year, the stock market went up 34 percent in 1 year, and corporations took record profits. But the consumer debt in America went up. The consumer debt in America is at the highest level in history. So we are going to vote today on whether or not someone at the bottom of the economic ladder who has seen their income decline and their wages decline in the last years is going to get an opportunity to work for less than three-quarters of the rate of poverty. If you work at the minimum wage in America a 40-hour week, 52 weeks a year, you earn $8,500 a year. Try and live on that. The poverty level for a family of four is $16,000 a year. The poverty level for a family of three is $12,500. Can we not even find it in our capacity, where we have the most expensive, rich pensions in American history, where we have a salary--all of us --at $130,000 a year, to raise the minimum wage for people working at the bottom of the economic ladder? That is the test of the conscience of the Senate today. The efforts of the Republicans to come in with an exemption for two- thirds of the companies in this country is wrong. In combination with the rest of their amendment, one-half of the people working for the minimum wage would be denied an increase. This is a vote over right and wrong, and I think history has proven that it is right to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was pleased to be the principal cosponsor of an amendment offered by the Senator from Iowa [Mr. Harkin] to the Defense authorization bill, amendment No. 4177. It was my intention to join Senator Harkin on the floor to speak in favor of the amendment that seeks to obtain a greater sharing of the financial and other burdens of stationing American troops in foreign countries. However, Senator Harkin successfully negotiated with the managers of the bill and they agreed to accept the amendment. As a consequence, it was hastily offered and approved by a voice vote last night while I was away from the Senate floor and could not reach the floor before that action was concluded. Because of my strong support for this amendment, I would like to insert in the Record the statement I intended to make when the amendment was offered, and I ask unanimous consent that the statement be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. I thank him particularly for his leadership and the leadership of his family with respect to all issues of civil rights over the turbulent period of the modern history of this country. I join with Senator Kennedy and Senator Faircloth in supporting this legislation. I think every single one of us in America is outraged at the cowardly acts of hatred and violence which have now become much too commonplace in America. It is clear that there still is a systematic prejudice that lives on, both in those who did not learn the lessons of the turbulent period of our civil rights history, or even among the young generation who have not lived through the suffering and confrontation of that period of time in this country. Those who have set churches ablaze have really succeeded in rekindling a national desire to stamp out bigotry and prejudice throughout this country. They have rekindled our commitment and our desire to speak out loudly and clearly to achieve equality, equal rights, and justice in the face of a world that seems too willing to forget history and to repeat it. For those of us who were involved in the civil rights movement and joined with men and women of good will, white and black, we thought somehow we had progressed beyond this. We thought the images of the 1960's, of hatred and of malice and prejudice against black Americans for no other reason than the color of their skin--we thought somehow we had grown beyond that and were reaching at least toward an era of progress. So the church burnings in the last few weeks bring back to us, in stark and horrible terms, a period of time we would rather forget. It is sad we have had to come to this floor again, in 1996, to fight about it. I think it is clear in this legislation that we cannot and will not let the hatred and ignorance of a few criminals tarnish what all of us want to achieve in this country. We cannot in the face of the haters and the bigots and the racists, avoid strengthening our own resolve to tear down the walls that still divide us and stand together, shoulder to shoulder, in solidarity against this kind of intolerance. As a nation and as a people, we have to recommit in these times to our constitutional, religious and philosophical belief in equal justice under the law. I think it is important to remember the words of Martin Luther King, who said: I have seen too much hate to want to hate, myself; and I have seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many white citizens councils, and too many klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself. And every time I see it I have to say self-hate is too great a burden to bear. It would be appropriate to let Dr. Martin Luther King's words be our lesson as we seek out these criminals, bring them to justice, and rally together to end the hatred and intolerance of this Nation. I commend Senators Kennedy and Faircloth for their initiative to help us make it clear to everyone that, when you burn one church in this country, you burn the Constitution; when you attack one place of worship, you attack all Americans; and none of us should stand silent in the face of that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin. Mr. President, I was really fascinated to listen to our colleague from New Hampshire. I really never knew, but now I guess the Senate has learned something new, that the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Thompson, and the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, are the tools of the union bosses. That is a rather remarkable concept. I am sure the Senator from Arizona will struggle, as will the Senator from Tennessee, for years to get out from under that moniker. I think that both that and the argument of the Senator from Washington just underscore what is really going on here today in the U.S. Senate. Every argument that can conceivably be laid out on the table in pretense on the merits is really just an effort to avoid what this vote today is really about. This vote today is about whether or not the U.S. Senate is willing to stay here and work to produce campaign finance reform or whether it is happier with the status quo. That is the vote. It is very simple. Eighteen months ago we could have started doing campaign finance reform. I think it was 12 months ago there was a famous handshake between Newt Gingrich and the President suggesting there would be a commission to deal with campaign finance reform. But not only did Congress not follow through on the commission, as neither the President nor the Speaker did, but at the last moment here we are on day one of consideration of this bill and we have to have a cloture vote. That tells the whole story. This is not a serious effort to legislate. This is not a serious effort to take an amendment from the Senator from New Hampshire and deal with this problem of constitutionality or of union bosses. After all, they only have 53 votes last time I counted. It seems to me that if it is truly an issue of the unions, that 53 Republicans are very quickly going to be summoned to the floor to vote against whatever union advantage is being built into this bill. So let us cut the charade here. This is not a serious effort to legislate. This is, once again, the Senate's moment of tokenism to pretend or at least expose--because Senator Feingold and Senator McCain insisted on it--that there are a majority of Senators here who are unwilling to deal with the issue of campaign finance reform. There is not even a serious discussion going on of an alternative. There is no alternative that has been proposed. There is no serious set of alternatives that have been put forward to try to say, ``Well, if we don't want to do it your way, here's a better way of doing it.'' There is no better way on the table. The Senate has been forced to bring one vehicle to the floor today, one effort, one pathetic gasp to try to suggest that we are prepared to deal with what the majority of Americans want us to deal with, which is the putrid stench of the influence of money in Washington that is taking away democracy from the people of the country. Everybody knows it. Every poll in the Nation just screams it at us. Ninety-two percent of registered voters believe that special interest contributions affect the votes of the Members of Congress. Eighty-eight percent believe that people who make large contributions get special favors from politicians. The evidence of public discontent just could not be more compelling. It is now spoken in the way in which Americans are just walking away from the system. Only 37 percent turned out to vote in the last election. They are walking with their feet away from what they perceive as an unwillingness of the Congress to deal with this. The vote today, Mr. President, is very simple. Do you want to deal with campaign finance reform or do you want to play the game again and be content and pretend that there is some great constitutional issue? I listened to the Senator from Washington raise the first amendment. My God, three-quarters of the people today talking about the first amendment and no curbs on free speech are the first people to come down here and vote against the Supreme Court's decision with respect to the protection of free speech and the flag. So they choose it when it suits their purposes, and then they go protect it when it also suits their purposes. Selective constitutionalism. Any third-grader does understand that if there is a voluntary system, purely voluntary, by which people participate in limits, there is no restraint on free speech. Anybody who wants to go out and spend their millions of dollars and avoid accountability within the rest of the system can do so under this bill. There is no limit. If perchance there were to be some problem with the PAC's and constitutionality, because of the freedom of association, the House of Representatives, in their bill, has an alternative. It is perfectly legitimate for us to send this bill to a conference committee, work in the conference committee, come up with a reasonable alternative and come back here. It is really inconceivable that the Republican Party, which is the majority of the U.S. Senate with 53 votes, is going to be disadvantaging itself in any amendment on the floor of the U.S. Senate, because they can summon all 53 votes to beat back any amendment that does not draw away some measure of those who are reasonable on their side. So this is not an effort to legislate. This is an effort to procrastinate once again. It is a vote on whether you desire to have campaign finance reform or whether you are content to suggest that there are problems with this bill sufficient that we cannot even deal with it on the floor or work through the legislative process. I have some problems with this bill. I do not like every component of it. I personally would like to see more free time available. I think there are a number of other options that we could work on. But I am content to live with what the majority of the U.S. Senate thinks is appropriate. I am content to have whatever advantage to our side or their side be put to the test of the legislative process. That is what we are supposed to do. Instead, once again, the special interests are going to win here today. Probably most likely this issue will not be able to be seriously considered this year yet again. I have worked on this since the day I came here with Senator Bradley, Senator Biden, Senator Mitchell, and Senator Boren. We have passed it in certain years here. But the game has been played with the House so it comes back at the last minute. Each side can blame the other for not really being serious about it or for filibustering it to death. In the end, Mr. President, the American people lose again, because everyone knows that the budget deficit is partly driven by the interests that succeed in preventing any tough choices from being made. Everyone knows what the money chase and the money game in Washington is all about. We would all be better off if we were to reduce that. I hope that colleagues today will come together in an effort to try to say, let us at least legislate through the week and see if we could engage in a serious effort to try to deal with one of the most pressing problems facing America's fledgling democracy. Mr. President, I yield back whatever time I may have to the manager of the bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to express concern and outrage at the dastardly acts of hatred and violence against black churches, against good and decent people, people of faith with a strong sense of community. This legislation is a bipartisan statement that the United States Senate is determined to bring this outrage to a halt. Make no mistake, those who have set these churches ablaze have rekindled our desire to stamp out bigotry and prejudice everywhere. There was a time in America, not long ago, when many of us were involved in the Civil Rights movement with men and women of good will-- white and black--who demonstrated and marched for equal rights and justice in the face of the worst kind of violence, hatred, and bigotry. Black churches had long been a refuge from prejudice and served as the symbol of community for millions of Americans who were the victims of blind intolerance that raged throughout this country. We cannot and must not let the hatred and ignorance of a few criminals, arsonists, separatists, or supremacists turn back the clock on the progress we have made toward racial equality. We must, in this face of the haters, the bigots, and the racists, strengthen our resolve to tear down the walls that divide us and stand together, shoulder-to- shoulder, in solidarity against intolerance and this kind of violent, destructive, sociopathic behavior directed at our fellow citizens. Those who have committed these hate crimes have forgotten the lessons of history. They have forgotten or never learned what America went through in the 1960s. They have forgotten the faces on the bridge in Selma, the burning bus of the Freedom Riders ablaze in Anniston, AL and the horrifying scene of demonstrators being dragged from the bus and beaten. They have forgotten the image of ``Bull'' Connor ordering the use of police dogs and fire hoses on demonstrators in Birmingham. They have forgotten or never learned the meaning of the assassination of Dr. King. These thugs are no different than the haters, cowards, and common criminals in white hoods who burned crosses in the middle of the night in a reign of terror against innocent people who sought only fairness, equal rights, and justice. We can thank God that history taught most of us a lesson. History has passed its own lesson on the cross-burners along with men like ``Bull'' Connor because of their racism, ignorance and cowardice. But now, years later, those who learned nothing from history, or those too young, too alone, too desocialized, disinterested, or demoralized to know better are burning churches instead of crosses, and they must be brought to justice. As a nation and as one people united in our constitutional, religious, and philosophical belief in equal justice under the law, we cannot let the actions of these criminals result in bitterness, anger, or retaliation. We cannot let them divide us. We must remember the words of Martin Luther King who said, ``I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself, and I've seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many White Citizens Councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself: hate is too great a burden to bear.'' Let Dr. King's words be our lesson as we find these criminals, bring them to justice, and rally together for an end to hatred and intolerance in this Nation. I commend the Senators who have taken the leading roles in crafting the language on which we will be voting, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment that seeks to address yet another painful chapter in the long legacy of painful chapters with respect to Vietnam, and it specifically addresses what some might characterize as our own form of a bureaucratic Phoenix Program that sought to eliminate from existence a group of commandos who served faithfully during the war under our organizational effort and command effort. This amendment would reimburse this group of commandos for their years of incarceration in North Vietnamese prisons while they served in the mutual cause with us in the war in Vietnam. What the amendment seeks to do is to authorize $20 million for payment to Vietnamese personnel who infiltrated into North Vietnam to perform covert operations during the Vietnam era and who were captured and incarcerated by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam. Under the amendment, a lump-sum payment of $40,000 would be provided to each claimant determined eligible by the Secretary of Defense, and I am pleased to say that the administration has worked very closely in designing this amendment and in signing off on it and now fully supports it, as do, I believe, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee and the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. Those of us who offer this amendment recognize that the United States worked with many Southeast Asian forces during the Vietnam war, but our intent here is to only single out for recognition the Vietnamese commandos who participated in a specific program, in OPLAN 34A and its predecessor, and who sought under that program to infiltrate into North Vietnam, who were captured and who were incarcerated in the process. In designing guidelines for proof of eligibility for payments under this amendment, the Secretary of Defense is to take into account that these claimants, because of the war and the incarceration, may not have complete documentation proving eligibility. But it is our intent that the standard of proof here be set low enough to do justice in this situation. Mr. President, 30 years ago, Vietnam presented us with a host of questions and difficult contradictions, and now in this situation, we find a new chapter that is a surprise for all of us. In many ways, this chapter is old because we have always known through the centuries that war is cruel. On the other hand, it is new because, as Americans, none of us have ever expected that we would allow something to happen that purposefully or inadvertently attacks or diminishes our own sense of honor. The truth is that we sent heroic Vietnamese commandos into North Vietnam to do our bidding, risking their lives and even their families' lives, and then we left them there, denied their existence, and walked away leaving them to be imprisoned, tortured or killed. So we are here today simply to right a wrong, to pay for an injustice and to seek fairness and put this still another disturbing chapter about Vietnam behind us. These are the quick facts, and I will just run through them very, very quickly. In the early days of the war, the United States and South Vietnamese Governments initiated a joint covert intelligence-gathering operation against North Vietnam, and recruited were commandos from among Vietnamese civilians and the Armed Forces of the Army of the Republic of Vietnam. The United States, through the CIA and later through the Defense Department, provided training and funding, including salaries, allowances, bonuses, and death benefits. Together, the United States and South Vietnamese officials determined where and when the commandos, who were organized into teams, would be infiltrated into North Vietnam. Many were dropped by parachute, but some were inserted by land or sea. Some also conducted counterintelligence activities against North Vietnam and against Laos. ARES, the first team, was inserted in early 1961. By the early 1970's, there were 52 teams comprising nearly 500 commandos who had been inserted behind enemy lines. Initially, the mission was confined to intelligence gathering, but subsequently it grew to include sabotage and psychological warfare. From the very beginning, Mr. President, it was clear that this operation was a failure. Recently, declassified Defense Department documents show that the teams were killed or captured very shortly after landing and that the CIA and the Defense Department, which took over the operation in early 1964, knew it at that time. It is now apparent that the missions were compromised and that Hanoi ran a counterespionage operation against us and our South Vietnamese ally by forcing our commandos to radio back the information that they, Hanoi, wanted us to hear. The preponderance of the evidence that has come to light in the last year leaves little doubt that the United States Government at that time continued to insert Vietnamese commandos behind enemy lines, knowing full well that it was sending them on near impossible missions with little chance of success. The Defense Department then compounded this tragedy by writing off the lost commandos as dead, apparently in order to avoid paying their monthly salaries. An example: A six-man team, called Attila, was dropped into Nghe An province on April 25, 1964. The team was immediately captured. Two months later on July 16, Radio Hanoi announced the names and addresses of the six team members, the dates they were captured, and the start of their trials. Declassified Defense Department documents indicate that we knew the team had been captured, but, nevertheless, by the beginning of 1965, only months later, the Defense Department had declared the entire team dead and paid small death benefits to their next of kin. The process of declaring the commandos dead on paper was reaffirmed in 1969 by the colonel in charge of the operations for MACSOG, the Military Assistance Command Studies and Observations Group. He said: We reduced the number of dead gradually by declaring so many of them dead each month until we had written them all off and removed them from the monthly payrolls. So, Mr. President, after sending these men on these extraordinary missions, after cutting off their pay, we then committed the most egregious act of all. We made no effort to obtain their release, along with the American POW's, during the peace negotiations in Paris. As a result, many of these brave men, who fought alongside us for the same cause, spent years in prison, more than 20 years in some cases. After their release from prison in the 1970's or 1980's, a number of the commandos made their way to the United States. They are now seeking acknowledgement from our country for their service and payment from the U.S. Government for their period of incarceration. In a lawsuit, they have asked for $2,000 a year for an average of 20 years spent in captivity. We believe, those of us supporting this amendment, that the United States owes these men a debt that can never be repaid. We can at least give them the recognition that they deserve and the small amount of compensation that they were promised three decades ago. Speaking for myself, I am not here, nor do I think any of us are here, to try to point fingers at people individually, nor even to find scapegoats or scalps. I do not think any purpose is served by that. But we do want people to understand what happened 25, 30 years ago so that it will not happen again. We are here also to do the right thing. It is clearly important not to compound judgments that were wrong 25 and 30 years ago with judgments that are wrong today. It would be wrong to avoid executing our responsibility today. So, Mr. President, we can honor their service and make it clear to those who might join us again at any time, now or in the future, in the struggle for freedom and democracy, that we are big enough in our country to admit mistakes when they are made and to move to rectify them, and that while sometimes people may make mistakes, a great country will always honor and thank those who fight with us in a common cause. Mr. President, I believe the amendment that we are offering today will help to provide that recognition, and I urge its adoption. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator McCain, Bob Kerrey, Bob Smith, Larry Pressler, Chuck Robb, Tom Daschle, and Pat Leahy.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 4055 (Purpose: To provide for the Secretary of Defense to make payment to Vietnamese personnel who infiltrated into North Vietnam to perform covert operations as part of OPLAN 34A or its predecessor)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. KERRY. I wanted to ask my colleague how long he might be proceeding and whether he thinks there might be time, since Senator McCain and Senator Smith are here, for a quick interlude to act on an amendment that has been agreed upon and restore the floor to the Senator from Nevada.

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator from Nevada yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues to express concern and outrage at the dastardly acts of hatred and violence against black churches, against good and decent people, people of faith with a strong sense of community. This legislation is a bipartisan statement that the United States Senate is determined to bring this outrage to a halt. Make no mistake, those who have set these churches ablaze have rekindled our desire to stamp out bigotry and prejudice everywhere. There was a time in America, not long ago, when many of us were involved in the Civil Rights movement with men and women of good will-- white and black--who demonstrated and marched for equal rights and justice in the face of the worst kind of violence, hatred, and bigotry. Black churches had long been a refuge from prejudice and served as the symbol of community for millions of Americans who were the victims of blind intolerance that raged throughout this country. We cannot and must not let the hatred and ignorance of a few criminals, arsonists, separatists, or supremacists turn back the clock on the progress we have made toward racial equality. We must, in this face of the haters, the bigots, and the racists, strengthen our resolve to tear down the walls that divide us and stand together, shoulder-to- shoulder, in solidarity against intolerance and this kind of violent, destructive, sociopathic behavior directed at our fellow citizens. Those who have committed these hate crimes have forgotten the lessons of history. They have forgotten or never learned what America went through in the 1960s. They have forgotten the faces on the bridge in Selma, the burning bus of the Freedom Riders ablaze in Anniston, AL and the horrifying scene of demonstrators being dragged from the bus and beaten. They have forgotten the image of ``Bull'' Connor ordering the use of police dogs and fire hoses on demonstrators in Birmingham. They have forgotten or never learned the meaning of the assassination of Dr. King. These thugs are no different than the haters, cowards, and common criminals in white hoods who burned crosses in the middle of the night in a reign of terror against innocent people who sought only fairness, equal rights, and justice. We can thank God that history taught most of us a lesson. History has passed its own lesson on the cross-burners along with men like ``Bull'' Connor because of their racism, ignorance and cowardice. But now, years later, those who learned nothing from history, or those too young, too alone, too desocialized, disinterested, or demoralized to know better are burning churches instead of crosses, and they must be brought to justice. As a nation and as one people united in our constitutional, religious, and philosophical belief in equal justice under the law, we cannot let the actions of these criminals result in bitterness, anger, or retaliation. We cannot let them divide us. We must remember the words of Martin Luther King who said, ``I've seen too much hate to want to hate myself, and I've seen hate on the faces of too many sheriffs, too many White Citizens Councilors, and too many Klansmen of the South to want to hate, myself; and every time I see it, I say to myself: hate is too great a burden to bear.'' Let Dr. King's words be our lesson as we find these criminals, bring them to justice, and rally together for an end to hatred and intolerance in this Nation. I commend the Senators who have taken the leading roles in crafting the language on which we will be voting, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voted against the Republican budget resolution when it came before the Senate. I told this body my reason which distills to one simple truth: It does not reflect the priorities of the American people. Sadly, as soon as Members of the House of Representatives had their say in the budget, as soon as the influence of the Speaker of the House was brought to bear in the conference committee, a bad budget was rendered even worse. Mr. President, the bill which lies before us is in fact the Newt Gingrich budget. After the drubbing the Republican Party took last year for holding hostage the Government and those its services help as those Republicans sought their scorched Earth budget at all costs, some of the rougher edges have been slightly rounded, some of the more severe slashes have been moderated. But this is unmistakably a budget without a heart, a budget that has no concept of investment for the future of our country and its people. When we first considered the budget for the next fiscal year, I tried to improve the bill by restoring funds for environmental protection and conservation efforts, for education--the Gingrich budget marks the largest education cut in history--and I tried to trim unnecessary defense spending to the level requested by the President. But then as now, the Republican Party has moved in lockstep to prevent us from providing services that the American people urgently need. As an alternative, the President's budget continues the sound economic and fiscal policy put in place in 1993 which has halved the deficit, kept interest rates and inflation low and created more than 8 million jobs. His budget is the right way to balance the budget. But this resolution is shameful. The Gingrich budget continues the smoke-and-mirror gimmicks vetoed by the President and rejected by the American people. It slashes Medicare, cripples education programs, and opens tax loopholes for big corporations. This is the wrong way. Despite continuous and strong economic news, American workers feel insecure. Working families worry about their economic security; they worry about their retirement security. As I travel across Massachusetts, people tell me they are worried about their physical safety and their ability to afford health care. This Republican budget will only exacerbate this pervasive sense of insecurity. At a time when we are fearful about the level of violent crime and the need to conduct a real war on drugs, the Gingrich budget would spend less in 1997 than was allocated in 1996 for crime prevention. At a time when Americans believe that their only chance to realize the American dream is through education, the Republican budget gives education and training funding short shrift--$56 billion less than the President's balanced budget. At a time when Americans look toward their senior years and see an uncertain future, the Republican conference report slashes Medicare spending by $168 billion. That is the wrong set of priorities for our Nation, for our economy, and for hard-working American families, Mr. President. I reject this conference report as I, the President and the American people rejected the Republican plan last year, and as I rejected only 2 weeks ago this year's Republican plan. I hope my colleagues oppose the Republican conference report. We can do better for the country and we ought to. I yield the floor. wrong budget priorities

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, though I cannot join my Republican colleagues in wishing Senator Dole success in his next endeavor, I join with Senator Daschle and all of my colleagues in wishing the distinguished majority leader and his wife and daughter good health and every happiness in the future. To leave his beloved institution after such a long and illustrious public service career--for whatever reason--is, I am sure, difficult, but there is no greater reward than the legacy of honorable public service. Though we may not have agreed on many issues in the time we have served together in this body, there is one in particular we agreed on and we worked together to make it happen. The Brockton, MA Little League became a national model for the establishment of a challenge division for little leaguers with disabilities, thanks to the efforts of Senator Dole. He is a fellow veteran and a man of proven personal courage and deep political conviction. He has been an integral part of the history of this institution and he will be missed. Whatever our politics, whatever our philosophy of Government, this Nation, the democratic process, and the U.S. Senate are well served by those who have both the courage to survive against the odds in the face of extraordinary personal hardship, and the common sense to seek reasonable compromise for the survival of the Nation. The distinguished majority leader's life has indeed been one of personal courage and political compromise. His record of public service speaks for itself, and as he leaves here today, we wish him well. As colleagues, we must put politics aside for a moment, remember the man and his career, and say to the distinguished major leader: Thank you for the lesson in service and democracy that you have given us. ``the measure of a man''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have had this debate before. But more than talking about someday in the future balancing the budget we should be balancing is now. Since the last debate, we have had ample opportunity to balance the budget--not just attach our names to a constitutional amendment which does nothing to get us to balance. We are here arguing about the requirement rather than doing the hard work necessary to succeed in that effort. Mr. President, every Member of this body has voted for one plan or another to balance the Federal budget by the year 2002. We have all done that, Mr. President. Last year, I voted for the Conrad budget and this year, I voted for the President's budget. Both plans brought us to balance by the year 2002. This amendment will not force differing parties to come together--the parties must do that themselves with the same energy with which they debate this issue. Over the past year, I have weighed this issue carefully--I have reexamined my opposition to this constitutional amendment as drafted and reviewed all the arguments in this debate. I have read and re-read historic documents, analyzed committee hearings and the report language, and carefully assessed the impact of this amendment on Massachusetts and the country as a whole. And, Mr. President, after this review, I arrive at the same conclusion--we do not need this amendment as drafted to balance the budget. Everything in this debate must be viewed with that truth in mind. We do not need this amendment to the constitution. It is superfluous. And passing it will not magically balance the budget. The proponents of this amendment have said in the Chamber time and again that by constitutionalizing the fiscal principle of a balanced budget, a new moral power will overcome members of Congress. To quote the committee report on this subject: ``The Committee expects fidelity to the constitution, as does the American public.'' Needless to say, there is an extraordinary statement of pathetic admission in this glorification of a new moral authority. Here are elected officials, already sworn to defend the Constitution which means defending the general welfare of the nation; already granted, at the highest level of Government, major responsibility to carry out the public trust. We are individually already on record in town meeting after town meeting--in editorial board after editorial board--in campaign promise after campaign promise--in support of a balanced budget. And yet, here we are, being told that words on a piece of paper will somehow provide the moral force to accomplish what nothing but the lack of personal moral commitment prevents them from doing today, right now. Tragically, Mr. President, this amendment as drafted is neither fair nor neutral. It has been drafted in a way as to create an amendment with an agenda. This amendment goes well beyond fiscal responsibility and constitutionalizes the politics of the moment--the immediate political agenda of the current majority--in a way that may ultimately do violence to the genius of our Constitution and our form of democracy. When the veneer is stripped from this amendment, we see a deeply troubling political motive that goes well beyond just balancing the budget--which, by definition, cannot be the only reason for this amendment since the proponents already have the authority to balance the budget today. They can do it today. And we have voted on plan after plan to bring the budget to balance. Mr. President, this amendment goes further than balancing the budget--it goes to the heart of our democratic process. It carries with it a fundamental shift in the exercise of decisionmaking in America. Those who are using this amendment as a weapon in an ideological war do not want the votes of those who think differently to count as much as theirs. It's that simple. If there is a possibility you may ever reach a different conclusion than they have, they want to make certain that your vote will not count equally by requiring that you must find a super-majority to fight back. This is wrong, Mr. President, it is undemocratic, and fundamentally revolutionary in the worst sense of the word. But, Mr. President, that is not all that is wrong with this amendment as drafted--though it would certainly seem to be enough. This amendment as drafted will encourage budget gimmickry. It invites the worst type of cynicism. The experience of States with balanced budget requirements only bears this out. The proponents of this amendment have argued that the experience of States with balanced budget requirements makes a constitutional amendment obvious--but realities in budgeting demonstrate the exact opposite to be true. I take to heart the testimony of the former comptroller of one State: Edward Regan of New York told the Congress that many States with balanced budget requirements achieve compliance only with ``dubious practices and financial gimmicks.'' These gimmicks include shifting expenditures to off-budget accounts or the financing of certain functions to so-called independent agencies. These States have been creative with tricks and ploys to mask their deficits. My distinguished colleague from Vermont, Senator Leahy, has illustrated some of the shenanigans in his lucid critique of this amendment--he talks of States using ``accelerated revenue receipts such as tax payments, postponing payments to localities and school district suppliers, delaying refunds to taxpayers and salary and expense payments to employees until the next fiscal year, deferring contributions to pension funds or forcing changes in actuarial assumptions, and selling States' assets.'' And this amendment does nothing to stop the Federal Government from employing the same tactics and dozens of others. Mr. President, consider the effects of these gimmicks on the people in this country. Postponing payments? Withholding funding for schools? Delaying refunds to taxpayers? Deferring pension contributions? Selling our national assets? That will be the result of this amendment, Mr. President. I oppose this gimmick. And I do so principally because I have come to believe this is an ill-advised attempt to memorialize, in the fundamental governing document of this democracy, budget gimmicks and one political party's fiscal agenda. This amendment as drafted, Mr. President, is political dogma disguised as economic policy. It is the continuation of an ongoing effort to demonize national interests by demonizing those who promote any kind of national programs to protect the American concept of community. The gimmicks engendered by this amendment will assist the victory of stagnant partisan politics over sound public policy, doing what's smart politically rather than what's good for the American people. The budget process of the U.S. Congress already gives us the means to balance the budget. The Constitution already gives us the authority. We have all voted on plans to balance the budget by the year 2002. Let us get on with negotiating a plan that works for the American people-- bring this budget into balance and protect services the American people depend upon. I stand in strong support of a balanced budget, Mr. President and have voted for balanced budget plans, but I am still opposed to amending our statement of rights, our Constitution, with this particular resolution. If the majority wants a balanced budget, as I and other Democrats do, we should spend our time balancing the budget. It's axiomatic. It is simple. It is time. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to Lieutenant Commander Stephen Metruck who has served as my legislative assistant for oceans and fisheries issues for the past 2\1/2\ years. Steve has done an outstanding job and has honored himself and the Coast Guard with his dedication and quiet dignity. His talents and the depth of his knowledge brought a unique perspective on the issues on which he advised me, and he will be missed. I know that the Coast Guard needs to retain officers with his experience and capability and Steve's dedication to the Service compels him to return to the field, but I would welcome his permanent service in my office. Our loss is the Coast Guard's gain, and Steve will be leaving my staff shortly to return to serve as the Executive Officer of the Coast Guard Marine Safety Office in Buffalo, NY. Steve came to my staff on detail from the United States Coast Guard to assist me with my work on the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries. As Ranking Member of that Subcommittee--and in my prior role as Vice Chairman of the subcommittee's predecessor, the National Ocean Policy Study--I had planned to sponsor a number of important legislative measures including the reauthorization of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act and was pleased to gain someone with Steve's experience and expertise in marine safety and environmental policy. For over 2\1/2\ years, Steve has been a crucial part of my legislative team. I have come to rely on his expertise in Coast Guard, marine, coastal and fisheries issues. As we all know around here, it is critical to have staff that can produce high quality work under short deadlines and with constantly shifting priorities. Steve was a master juggler. He was a quick study and in short order he began to work closely with Committee staff where he helped draft several bills and amendments, including the omnibus rewrite of the Magnuson bill as well as innumerable floor statements, memos and letters. Another key aspect for any staff in my office is to provide courteous and helpful constituent service. Steve demonstrates an amazing ability to be sensitive yet fair to all parties involved in an issue. I believe that most of my constituents--fishermen, coastal residents, environmental activists and others--who he has served would agree that he is always extremely helpful and treats everyone equally and with respect. As he leaves to continue his duty with the Coast Guard, I join the members of my staff and everyone who has had the pleasure to work with Steve Metruck during his time in the United States Senate in wishing him well in his service. I know Steve will continue to honor his uniform, his country, and his family with the decency, intelligence, and integrity he brought to his service on my staff. He is to be commended for his deep and abiding belief that we must do everything we can to responsibly protect and preserve the environment. Good luck, Lieutenant Commander Stephen P. Metruck, and thank you for a job well done.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague from New York, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, in introducing this important piece of legislation. It is not often that Senator D'Amato and I agree on issues on this floor or in the Banking Committee, and when we do, there is justification for strong bi-partisan support. That is indeed the case on this legislation, and I am pleased to join with my colleague, and I congratulate him on his leadership in moving to protect consumers against the potential of double-bank-fees that amount to a banking- penalty tax on consumers. Why do we need this legislation now? Because, on April 1 of this year, American depositors had a cruel April Fool's joke played on them. That's the day Visa and MasterCard--owners of two of the largest automated teller network--began letting their member banks charge a fee to other banks' customers who use their automated tellers. Some banking analysts tell me that across the country this surcharge can range from 50 cents to $2.50. Consumers can be charged an increased fee by both their bank and the bank whose machine they are using which could cost as much as $5 to make a deposit, a withdrawal, or to check your balance. Our legislation has a simple purpose: it prohibits a transaction fee assessed by the owner or operator of an ATM machine. This bill will stop double fees. It gives consumers negotiating power with a financial services industry which is consolidating and downsizing--laying off tellers, shutting branches and reducing bank-lobby hours; it helps the small banker from being run out of business by the big banks; and it bolsters congressional oversight of antitrust violations. Mr. President, Massachusetts is in a unique situation. Because of pending bank mergers and consolidations the 2 largest banks will soon own 2,200 of the 3,500 ATM machines in the State--about 65 percent. In no other State does one bank control more than 15 percent of the ATM's. I applaud the banking industry which has grown and is healthy and strong, and there is room in financial services for large institutions and for small credit unions and neighborhood savings and loans. This bill not only protects consumers, but it protects small banks that don't own more than a few ATM's from being run out of business by the larger banks who can offer free transactions at thousands of machines. Let me put this in perspective. In a survey of just 228 of the 3,500 machines in my State--less than 10 percent of all the machines--it was reported that 400,742 transactions per month would be subject to the new surcharge--almost 5 million transactions per year at just 10 percent of the ATM's in my State. If the larger financial institutions could offer no fee if a consumer took their money out of a smaller institution, the fate of the smaller institutions in an increasingly automated environment is obviously in question, and we have to address this problem now. And to save the community banks and avoid the 1990's version of the 1980's S&L crisis. Mr. President, in a recent USA Today interview with an executive of one of the Nation's largest banks, when asked ``are you instituting surcharges on non-customers who use your automated teller machines?'' the answer was somewhat disturbing. It was: We're going to do it . . . The reason is frankly pretty self-evident. You've got a community bank that likes to tell you they're going to give you this wonderful service and you can shake the President's hand and get a doughnut and a cup of coffee in the lobby and so on. When you go in to open an account they say we don't have any ATM's but don't worry about it, here's our card and you can use anybody's ATM in the country. So we're subsidizing the community banks. We're not going to do that anymore. Well, Mr. President, I ask, what's wrong with community banks. I like the idea of neighborhood credit unions and having a cup of coffee and a doughnut in the lobby. What this response tells me is that there is more to the surcharge than meets the eye. And we should be aware of the what lies around the corner as we head down the road. You will hear from representatives of the industry, Mr. President. Some of the biggest banks will lobby heavily saying that this fee is an issue of convenience. But I suspect that other forces are at play. Commercial banks posted record profits last year. This new fee is not designed to raise profits. Yet, community and cooperative bankers will tell you a different story--a constituent of mine in Dorchester, MA, owns a profitable bank with one ATM machine. He runs the bank well and serves the community. But he is no match against far bigger competitors. He knows that once these surcharges become pervasive and the big banks start charging his customers to use their ATM's, they will just move their accounts to the big banks to avoid the charge. So, this is not an issue of establishing prices and fees; this is an antitrust issue. I want to set the marker down clearly--the Congress needs to do a better job in monitoring and preventing the trend of consolidation from running the smaller banks out of business. I want to be clear about what else this bill does, and what it does not do. This legislation does not regulate fees and prices, and does not curtail the widespread use of ATM's especially in lower income areas. Mr. President, I do not believe that it is the business of the U.S. Senate to set prices and fees at banks and other financial institutions. I am a great believer in the free market--not the Federal Government--dictating fee structures. But there is a general sense of fairness that is being violated in this new surcharge. When a depositor opens an account, he or she knows the fees associated with transactions. It is current Federal law--found in statutes like the Electronic Funds Transfer Act, the Truth-in-Savings Act and the Truth-in-Lending Act--that mandates fees to be disclosed to the consumer. So, when we open a bank account, we will know how much each transaction will cost. But now, with this new surcharge, we are left in the dark. We don't find out how much it will cost to use an ATM machine, not associated with our particular bank, until our statement appears in the mail, long after the ATM transaction is completed. That is bad for consumers and it is bad precedent. And the trend is not favorable. Historic mergers, consolidations and acquisitions have taken place in financial service industry. Consumers have less choice, not more. Bank lobby hours have been curtailed so drastically, tellers replaced by machines, that we are forced to use ATM's. This is the direction of the industry and at some point the Congress must step in and let the banks know enough is enough. Thank you and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me make a simple observation on the Republican budget resolution before the Senate: it does not reflect the priorities of the American people. For that reason, I will oppose this budget. Mr. President, as you know, I attempted throughout the past several days to amend this Republican budget so it meets the needs of working Americans. I attempted to ensure that the violent crime reduction trust fund will be fully funded and that sufficient funds will be allocated to the community policing initiative. But this amendment was rejected along party lines. I tried to add back some of the cuts the Republicans have made to environmental protection and conservation efforts. But the amendment was rejected along party lines. I attempted to add back funds for education that the Republicans cut from the budget --the largest education cut in history. But the amendment was rejected along party lines. Time and again, the Republican party moved in lockstep to prevent us from providing services that the American people urgently need. The President of the United States has proposed a budget that balances in 6 years. It protects the environment. It secures our neighborhoods by putting more cops on the beat. It gives assistance to families trying to care for elderly parents and educate their children. I voted for that budget, Mr. President. The President s budget continues the sound economic and fiscal policy put in place in 1993 which has halved the deficit, kept interest rates and inflation low and created more than 8 million jobs. This is the right way to balance the budget. The Republicans' budget continues the smoke-and-mirror gimmicks vetoed by the President and rejected by the American people. It slashes Medicare, cripples education programs and opens tax loopholes for big corporations. This is the wrong way. Mr. President, let me give you an example of why I am wary of the budget the Republicans have presented this year despite all the pleas that they have learned their lesson and corrected their past mistakes. Last year, the Senate voted that 90 percent of any tax cut should go to people making less than $100,000 per year. Yet, the Republican budget, which the President wisely vetoed, devoted almost 48 percent of the tax cuts to people earning more than $100,000. So, Mr. President, here we go again. My parents taught me an old saying which guides me in my decision to reject the Republican plan before us: ``once bitten, twice shy.'' The Republican plan--then as now--raises Medicare premiums on our seniors, makes our environment vulnerable to the whims of polluters, denies Medicaid coverage to veterans who would have been ineligible for VA medical care, and prevents children of many middle income Americans from getting a loan to go to college. That is the wrong set of priorities for our Nation, for our economy and for hard-working American families, Mr. President. I reject this budget as I rejected the Republican plan last year, as the President rejected the Republican plan last year, and as the American people rejected the Republican plan last year. I hope my colleagues oppose the Republican plan. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will oppose the Breaux-Chafee substitute. I want to commend those who have been involved in that effort and support the objective they seek. Senator Chafee and Senator Breaux deserve our praise for showing the country that we do not need partisan bickering to reach a budget agreement. I would very much like to have been able to join their ranks and pass a budget on a bipartisan basis. I wish more of our Republican friends would have joined me in supporting the President's balanced budget. It is a sad commentary that not one Member of the other party could work with us on a plan which has proven to cut the deficit in half while keeping our economy moving at a robust clip. The President and the Democrats have crafted a budget which eliminates the deficit and works for middle-class Americans. Mr. President, I wish I could join my friends. I have discussed this proposal with a number of its proponents, but Mr. President, I cannot sign on to a plan at this time which arbitrarily changes the Consumer Price Index or its application to benefits that are by law adjusted for inflation. As you know, the CPI is one of the country's most widely watched economic indices. The CPI, which measures the changes in the cost of living, is determined by economists at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. These analysts are continually adjusting the CPI and the methodology they employ to ascertain it. There are a number of prominent economists--including Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan--who tell us the CPI overstates the actual cost of living and is therefore an inaccurate estimate for the rate of inflation. They call for the CPI to be adjusted downward. I know the proponents of this budget are responding to these calls when they arbitrarily lower the CPI and derive more than $100 billion to spend on tax breaks or to apply to deficit reduction. Mr. President, I think this action--which will affect millions of American taxpayers, Social Security beneficiaries, and other retirees-- is premature. As changing the CPI will affect millions of Americans, we should study it carefully before we enact any change in the way it is calculated as part of a deficit reduction plan. Perhaps at some point in the future, the Bureau of Labor Statistics will determine that the CPI exaggerates the cost of living and adjust the index downward. Or perhaps the Congress, after rigorous study, will thoroughly debate a legislative change in the CPI and subsequently enact a change. As you know, Mr. President, the Finance Committee has established a nonpartisan commission to study the accuracy and methodology of the Consumer Price Index. This Commission is due to release its final report this summer. We should wait at least until the Commission has reported its findings before legislating changes to this index. At least until then, Mr. President, legislation to change the CPI is not needed and would be extremely unwise. We can and should balance the budget without changing the CPI. The President has shown us that it is possible to balance the budget by the year 2002 without changing the CPI. I voted for his balanced budget proposal as did many of the proponents of this change in the CPI. I also have considerable concerns about the level and impact of cuts in the Breaux-Chafee budget from the level needed to maintain current Medicare and Medicaid services, as well as the discretionary programs that are so vital to investment in our future, ranging from education to infrastructure, from environmental protection to high-technology research and development. I am also very concerned about the size of the Medicare cuts in the Chafee-Breaux proposal which would reduce this essential program by $154 billion by 2002. These cuts will result in inadequate health care, more expensive health care, or no care at all. Although cuts this large could be implemented in a number of ways, and all of those would have a considerable negative impact because of the magnitude, the Chafee- Breaux proponents have advocated doubling Medicare premiums for middle and upper income seniors, requiring most participants to bear the burden of paying 31.5 percent of the part B program's costs. Forcing the elderly to pay an unfair share of deficit reduction is the wrong approach. And all for those reasons, I regretfully concluded I cannot join in supporting this budget alternative, and I must oppose the Chafee-Breaux substitute. I do hold out hope, however, Mr. President, that those of us who supported the President's budget, which balances the budget by the year 2002, will be able to work with the proponents of this budget alternative to secure final Senate action that will be far preferable for our Nation's sake than the budget the Republican majority will ram through both Houses of Congress this week.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we near the honoring of all our Nation's veterans through the celebration of Memorial Day, I would like to bring special attention to a World War II Army veteran from Boston, MA. On Christmas Day, 1944, 1st Lt. John R. Fox volunteered to serve as an artillery forward observer in the village of Sommocolonia, in the Serchio Valley, Italy. The following morning, trapped in a church steeple, Fox radioed his command to ask for artillery fire on his own position. No one at the artillery battalion command had ever heard such a request. They radioed back for clarification. John Fox answered, ``There are hundreds of them coming. Put everything you've got on my observation post.'' Mr. President, this is one of the most incredible acts of heroism about which I have ever heard. John Fox literally made the decision to sacrifice his life for his country. He has, along with six other African American soldiers from World War II, been nominated for our Nation's highest honor, the Medal of Honor. I would like to pay tribute here not only to Lieutenant Fox, but to all black veterans from all American wars. Our great country will always be in debt to all the men and women who have given or risked their lives for the preservation of freedom. It is long past time that we properly honor those whose remarkable patriotism and sacrifices have not previously received the respect and attention they deserve. I am thankful that on this Memorial Day the proper steps finally are being taken to accomplish that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program is one of the most important Federal programs for my home State of Massachusetts. I am pleased the President's budget calls for $1 billion in LIHEAP funding for the next fiscal year, and $300 million in emergency funding. After the severe weather of this past winter--which was even more efficient than our friends on the other side of the aisle at shutting down the Government--I hope the Senate can speak with one voice and send a message to the appropriators that funding for LIHEAP should match this year's outlays. LIHEAP means real help to people who need it. As fuel prices continue to rise, Senators should know how important this program is to their constituents. I know how important it is to mine. For lower-income residents in Massachusetts--those who receive assistance under LIHEAP--nearly $1 in $5 of their income goes to pay for energy bills. That is, Mr. President, 20 percent of a household's budget just to heat the home. And after paying their fuel bills, the average low-income New Englander has only $43 left over. We cannot expect these people to live without LIHEAP, Mr. President. This program needs to receive funds sufficient to serve lower income families in areas which experience colder winters. LIHEAP pays up to half of the heating bills for a family during the winter months in New England. Everyone in this country knows how cold it was in my region of the country this past winter, how much snow we had, how people were literally freezing in the streets. In fact, twice as many people froze to death during the severe winter than were killed in the 1994 California earthquake. I will never forget this past winter, as the temperature dropped below 20 degrees and the chairman of the energy committee in the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Representative Albert Herren, told me my State's LIHEAP funds had been depleted--in December. Mr. President, it was so cold and so snowy in Massachusetts, some schools closed for snow days as late as April. LIHEAP helps families and LIHEAP helps children, Mr. President. My friends at Massachusetts General Hospital tell me that the number of cases of child malnutrition increase every winter as families are forced to choose between eating and heating. This country is better than that, Mr. President. I am pleased to join my friend from Minnesota, Mr. Wellstone, in sponsoring this sense of the Senate that funding for LIHEAP should match last year's outlays. That seems to me the minimum the Senate can do to send a message to the appropriators and to the country that Congress wants lower income Americans to survive the upcoming winter. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this seeks to add back to the President's level the funding for various education programs ranging from the title I, Head Start, Pell grants, Goals 2000, and safe and drug-free schools. It would effectively restore for 1.3 million students the Pell grants; it would restore 550,000 students who would lose money as a result of title I cuts; it would restore 20,000 children to the Head Start Program and 130,000 youth and adults to job opportunities and skill enhancement. This merely brings it back to the President's level, again, and is appropriately offset.