John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could I reiterate? We were able to work out, obviously, a very agreeable approach to the question on health care which stymied us in a similar way for a period of time. I want to reiterate to the majority leader, we are not trying to kill this bill, at least for this reason. And we are not attempting to delay. Would it be possible to have an agreement that we will vote on this issue on a date certain between now and, say, the beginning of June? In a discussion with the majority leader, the minority leader and majority leader could arrive at a date certain for a vote?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, in all respect, in response to the majority leader, we had a vote in the U.S. Senate last year and 51 U.S. Senators voted that we should take up the minimum wage before the end of the last session. We did not do that. Now we are back. I did not even know about the AFL. I am glad you told me. Maybe I can arrange to get to the meeting. But I did not even know they were in town. We announced our intention to offer an amendment some time ago--Senator Kennedy, who has been leading on this effort, together with Senator Wellstone, a group of us--this has been something we have been trying to do for a number of years. The fact is, it is getting more necessary, not less, as a consequence of the fact that the wage each day is worth less. So, I say to the majority leader, we can always find a group that is in town at some period of time when some legislation is on the floor, and we all know Republicans collect far, far more money from interest groups than Democrats ever do. If we want to start pointing fingers at whose money comes from where, that is a different debate. The fact is, working people do not get the kind of money any of us get from anywhere, even from their work. That is what this debate is all about. Folks who are working and cannot even pay for medical insurance, let alone rent, let alone food. So I regret the majority leader will not say we can have a vote on this, will not even say we could have one by June. Therefore, Mr. President, I move to table my amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, without yet responding to the last comments of the majority leader, I again might ask, again without losing my right to the floor, I wonder if I could inquire of the majority leader why it might not be possible to set a time certain sometime in the future, perhaps a week or 2 weeks so that we could have at least a consideration of this issue on the floor of the Senate. I wonder if the majority leader might be willing to commit to that?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me answer the question of my colleague before I draw a conclusion. I wonder, since the majority leader is in the Chamber, if, without yielding my right to the floor, I could ask the majority leader if he believes it would be possible for us to work out some kind of agreement as to time for a vote. The majority leader was not in the Chamber, but I did say while he was out in the Cloakroom that this is not an effort to try to tie up the Senate. This is not an effort to try to delay the progress on this important legislation that we need to debate. This is simply an effort to try to see if we could reach a time certain for a vote on the minimum wage issue. I would ask the majority leader, without losing my right to the floor, if he would be willing to answer a question with respect to setting a time certain?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield for a question to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was going to yield for a question of my colleague. I believe he wanted to ask me a question. I yield for the purposes of answering the question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the regular order is----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say in answer to my colleague, I would be delighted to have any fair amount of time on both sides. I think it would be good if we could have that. I ask unanimous consent that we have a vote at a time certain and have a vote on my underlying amendment on the minimum wage at 4 o'clock.

Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we came to the floor this morning with the understanding that, while not as an official order, the minimum wage amendment was going to be offered. The minority leader was going to have time and the minority leader's designee was going to have an opportunity to submit the amendment. Senator Kennedy was the designee and, indeed, the Senator intended to offer the minimum wage amendment. We were blocked this morning from doing that, and now this afternoon a parliamentary process of what is called filling up the tree, putting in two amendments behind each other, which locks in the debate again, precludes a debate on the minimum wage at this time. But Senator Kennedy has submitted an amendment to the underlying amendment, and I have submitted a second-degree amendment to that not because we are trying to tie up the Senate and not because we are trying to delay the process of resolving this other legislation but simply because, as Senator Kennedy has said, we would like to have an answer. We would like to have a time. We work this out in the Senate all the time. We have an agreement with respect to the health care bill. We know there will be a time certain for debate on an issue of major importance to the American people. All we are asking for is some kind of bipartisan agreement and understanding as to when we can have a vote, a debate and a decision, on whether or not we are going to give working people at the lowest end of the income scale a pay raise. Corporate America has had a pay raise almost every day of the year last year. The stock market went up 34 percent in 1 year. The chief executive officers of companies are walking away with, what, 200 times the salary of workers. It used to be only 50 times and now it is 200 times. The stark reality is that in the United States of America in 1996, the minimum wage earns you a record 40-year low, or is about to earn you a record 40-year low. It is a 25-percent reduction over what it was in 1979. Through the 1950's, the 1960's, the 1970's, and finally even in the 1980's, as the minimum wage gap got bigger and bigger between what you earned working and the poverty level, we lifted it. All we are suggesting is that when a worker on the minimum wage earns three- quarters of the level of the poverty rate in this country, let us at least lift it up to permit them to get out of poverty. If you are going to give meaning to the notion of work and you are going to give meaning to the notion of welfare reform, if you are going to give meaning to the values we talk about in this Chamber, you have to give meaning to work and the money that people earn for working. Nothing is more fundamental, and we hope that the Senate will have the opportunity to have a bipartisan vote on this issue.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. The purpose of this legislation is to enable the United States to implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Protocol was negotiated by the parties of the Antarctic Treaty System and signed in October, 1991. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol on October 7, 1992. In August, 1993, I introduced the precursor to this bill and the Senate Commerce Committee reported it to the full Senate in early 1994. Unfortunately, continuing disagreements among scientists, conservation groups, and the administration about the legislative changes needed for the United States to carry out its responsibilities under the Protocol prevented further action on that bill. Today, I am pleased to announce that the legislative impasse has come to an end. The bill Senator Hollings and I are introducing is supported by all the parties engaged in this somewhat lengthy but ultimately successful consensus-building process. Why are we concerned about implementing this particular international agreement? The protocol recognizes that Antarctica is a unique and fragile ecosystem that must be monitored and protected and it reaffirms the designation of Antarctica as a special conservation area. At the same time, the protocol encourages and supports the unparalleled research opportunities Antarctica offers for scientific study of both global and regional environmental processes. Finally, the protocol acknowledges and addresses the impact of the growing number of tourists who travel to the Antarctic to witness its wild beauty and bountiful marine life, but whose presence is responsible for increasing environmental stress. The bill before us builds on the existing U.S. regulatory framework provided in the Antarctic Conservation Act to implement the protocol and to balance two important goals. The first goal is to conserve and protect the Antarctic environment and resources. the second is to minimize interference with scientific research. The bill amends the Antarctic Conservation Act to make existing provisions governing U.S. research activities consistent with the requirements of the Protocol. As under current law, the Director of the National Science Foundation [NSF] would remain the lead agency in managing the Antarctic science program and in issuing regulations and research permits. In addition, the bill calls for comprehensive assessment and monitoring of the effects of both governmental and nongovernmental activities on the fragile Antarctic ecosystem. It also would continue indefinitely a ban on Antarctic mineral resource activities. Finally, the bill amends the act to prevent pollution from ships to implement provisions of the protocol relating to protection of marine resources. Before closing, I would like to thank Senator Hollings, ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee; the Department of State, especially Under Secretary for Global Affairs Tim Wirth and Tucker Scully of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; Dr. Neil Sullivan, Director of Polar Programs, and Larry Rudolph of the National Science Foundation; and other interested parties including Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and especially the Antarctica Project and its director Beth Marks for their hard work and assistance in developing this bill. As one of the founders of the Antarctic Treaty System, the United States has an obligation to enact strong implementing legislation, and our action to complete ratification of the protocol is long overdue. I urge my colleagues' support, and prompt action to enact the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. To a family in Massachusetts, say a single parent with two kids, that spends about 60 bucks a week on groceries, this means a difference of 7 months groceries. What we are talking about is 7 months of food for the adult who is the combination breadwinner and parent and the two children. Obviously, if you can buy the 7 months of groceries, you then may also be able to move some of the money you had been spending on food to pay the heating bill, pay the rent, pay the utilities, or, if you are lucky enough to own a home, pay the mortgage. But, of course, you are very unlikely to own a home if the family's income depends on a minimum-wage job. But there are many Americans who are hampered in what jobs they can get because they do not have transportation. Often that is the difference--being able to travel by some means from home to a job. An increase in the minimum wage easily could enable a worker to afford transportation, maybe a $3,000 used car, so you can travel beyond the confines of an area where there are not a lot of jobs, and find a better job. There are many people with whom I talk in Massachusetts who are limited in their ability to get a decent job by their inability to be able to get to the job. As we are seeing more and more reductions in transit subsidies, bus routes are being cut, the fares are going up. People are actually written out of jobs because they cannot get to them. But let me just make one further point to my colleague, and then I will yield the floor to him. All of this is not really that complicated. You hear the same arguments every time. Oh, if you raise the minimum wage, all those kids in the work force or who want to come into the work force are going to be denied jobs. But the truth is, we are not talking about kids. We are talking about adults. More than 70 percent of the people working on minimum wage are adults. More than two-thirds of them are women. These are working families that are affected here. The argument is made that, oh, we are going to lose jobs if we raise that minimum wage. Well, there are at least 12 studies, several of them in the last couple of years, that refute that argument. A couple of these studies were done in New Jersey because New Jersey raised its minimum wage. You heard all the same arguments about New Jersey. And New Jersey experienced an increase in jobs. Can anyone look around America in any year in which we have raised the minimum wage and say that doing so held us back--that it hurt our economy or cost us jobs? Can you look around this country and suggest that we have not created more jobs and raised people's incomes while we provided that income floor which guaranteed that American workers are not going to be exploited? Mr. President, let us be honest about the history of what happened in our Nation. Go back and read the ``Grapes of Wrath.'' Go back through the history of the labor movement. Are we going to pretend that the gains for America's workers came spontaneously? Did they come out of the goodness of the hearts of managers or owners of the coal mines or the steel mills or the railroads of this Nation? No. Everybody knows the sacrifices that the labor movement had to make, and that people lost their lives. People were shut out, people were starved, people were hit over the head, knees were broken. People were killed because workers had to fight for the right to be able to get a decent wage. There was even a time, believe it or not--how amazing-- when people had to strike because they thought that they should not work more than 8 hours a day. Remember the exploitation of child labor? Remember the various diseases, the inhumane working conditions? So through the years we have reached a point in America where we thought we had a fundamental understanding about what was fair. Now you have people working at the minimum wage who are earning only three- quarters or half the level of poverty for their families. And we have a party that believes that those of us elected to try to make these choices in Washington should not have the right on the floor of the Senate to have an up-or-down vote on a proposal to increase that minimum wage. It is very simple. In this body, 51 votes is the measure of what we do. In this case, 51 votes is the measure of whether Americans working at the minimum wage will receive a raise. The chief executive officers of this country have not had a hard time getting raises. When 40,000 people are laid off at AT&T, the stock goes up and the chief executive can walk away with millions of dollars in additional compensation. What happens to those workers who were the victims of the downsizing? Well, maybe they have a skill level where they will break into another job. But for those people at the very bottom rung of the ladder, they are not going to have a chance to reach the next rung, or even to stay on the bottom rung, unless we lift their living standard and give them a raise. When one examines the ratio of salaries of chief executive officers to salaries of their companies' wage earners, the ratio has moved from 50 to 1, where it remained for decades in this country, to over several hundred to one today. It just seems incomprehensible to me, Mr. President, that we should be even debating whether we should give the workers on the bottom rung of the ladder a raise, especially when the purchasing power of their current wage is at a 40-year low. That is what this is all about. I hope that our colleagues will join with us in our traditional bipartisan approach on this issue and raise the minimum wage in this country. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Yes.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from Minnesota, when you talk to working people in Massachusetts and when you talk to almost anybody-- white-collar workers, people who have good jobs in our high-technology economy, people who are part of our financial services industry, which is one of the strongest in the Nation--I would say 80 percent of the people believe that workers at the bottom rung of the economic ladder ought to be able to secure income from their work that is at least equal to the poverty level. That is all we are asking for here. As an example, to answer your question specifically, a fellow named Neil Donovan, who runs something called Project Impact, which is a Massachusetts organization that puts homeless people into jobs, has said that a job placement at the minimum wage is, in fact, a recipe for failure. That is the experience of someone who runs a homeless shelter and wants to help those in the shelter to move toward self-sufficiency. Why is that? I can tell you, using as examples people who live in homeless shelters. There is a fellow about whom I have talked recently who lost his job. He is now in a homeless shelter. Four months ago, he found a new job. He is working as a stock clerk, doing errands in a small operation. He is working at the minimum wage, and at the end of the week, he brings home $132.50. He proudly brings this $132.50 back to the homeless shelter in which he still lives, because even the full $132.50 is too little to be able to pay for the smallest, cheapest studio apartment in the city of Boston. That amount does not begin to pay for health care. If you are a parent of a young child, it does not pay for day care. It does not pay the food bills for the month, after you have paid for the rent. We are talking about fundamental subsistence here. Corporations have seen their revenues increase 12 percent or more, but the total personal income of the country as a whole, taking all incomes into account, has only gone up 2 percent. And we know that even this increase was not evenly distributed across the income spectrum. The incomes that increased were mostly at the upper level. Here in the Congress we have a lot of people earning 10 times the poverty level. Ten times the poverty level we earn in the U.S. Congress, and the Republican leadership of the U.S. Senate is unwilling to raise the income level for those who are working at three-quarters of the poverty level and one-tenth of the salary of Senators.

Mr. KERRY. I must confess to the Senator from Minnesota, I do not understand that. I cannot understand why Senator Dole, who previously voted to raise the minimum wage, would not want to raise the minimum wage above what soon will be a 40-year low in purchasing power. The minimum wage in this country soon will be at a 40-year low. The poverty level in America is $12,500 for a family of three. It is $15,150 for a family of four. On a minimum wage, you can earn $8,500, three-quarters the level of poverty for a family of three, and only about half the poverty level for a family of four. I honestly do not know why the Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, the nominee-to-be of the Republican Party, would not want to see the minimum wage raised, particularly since he has previously joined in the bipartisan effort to try to do that. I do not have an answer. Maybe my colleague has an answer.

Mr. KERRY. Yes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his leadership in this effort, and Senator Wellstone and others who believe that the moment has really come for us to confront the reality of the rhetoric in Washington that talks about worker anxiety, that pays lip service to addressing the problem of downsizing and to the problem of the transformation in the American workplace. Countless Senators, on both sides of the aisle, have come to the floor on many different occasions and talked about the difficulties that the American worker faces today. In the Republican primaries, it became a major issue as Pat Buchanan focused on the anger that is coming out of those workers who work harder and harder and harder, play by the rules, pay their taxes, try to make ends meet, teach their kids, and yet they cannot get ahead. We have an opportunity in the U.S. Senate to ratify what the Senate has already expressed. Fifty-one U.S. Senators already voted last year, saying they want to vote on a proposal to increase the minimum wage. The minimum wage is worth less now than it was when those 51 Senators who voted said we need to raise it. The Republican majority has the opportunity to set the agenda of the Senate and, to some degree, thereby, the agenda of the country. As my colleague from Massachusetts said, this is their statement about their agenda. Their agenda is to not even let the U.S. Senate debate this and have an up-or-down vote on whether or not a majority of the U.S. Senate thinks it is time to raise the minimum wage. Increasing the minimum wage is not a great breaking of new ground in this country. In 1938, we passed a minimum wage and set it at 25 cents. In 1938, we came to a consensus in America that we ought to pay people a minimum base standard of living by which they ought to be able to work and achieve the American dream. Every year since 1938, when that wage dipped below because of inflation and changes in the marketplace, we raised the minimum wage. Democrat and Republican alike joined together to raise the minimum wage. The last time we raised it was 1989, and I think there were something like 86 or 89 votes in the U.S. Senate to raise it to the current level of $4.25.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. The purpose of this legislation is to enable the United States to implement the Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty. The Protocol was negotiated by the parties of the Antarctic Treaty System and signed in October, 1991. The Senate gave its advice and consent to the Protocol on October 7, 1992. In August, 1993, I introduced the precursor to this bill and the Senate Commerce Committee reported it to the full Senate in early 1994. Unfortunately, continuing disagreements among scientists, conservation groups, and the administration about the legislative changes needed for the United States to carry out its responsibilities under the Protocol prevented further action on that bill. Today, I am pleased to announce that the legislative impasse has come to an end. The bill Senator Hollings and I are introducing is supported by all the parties engaged in this somewhat lengthy but ultimately successful consensus-building process. Why are we concerned about implementing this particular international agreement? The protocol recognizes that Antarctica is a unique and fragile ecosystem that must be monitored and protected and it reaffirms the designation of Antarctica as a special conservation area. At the same time, the protocol encourages and supports the unparalleled research opportunities Antarctica offers for scientific study of both global and regional environmental processes. Finally, the protocol acknowledges and addresses the impact of the growing number of tourists who travel to the Antarctic to witness its wild beauty and bountiful marine life, but whose presence is responsible for increasing environmental stress. The bill before us builds on the existing U.S. regulatory framework provided in the Antarctic Conservation Act to implement the protocol and to balance two important goals. The first goal is to conserve and protect the Antarctic environment and resources. the second is to minimize interference with scientific research. The bill amends the Antarctic Conservation Act to make existing provisions governing U.S. research activities consistent with the requirements of the Protocol. As under current law, the Director of the National Science Foundation [NSF] would remain the lead agency in managing the Antarctic science program and in issuing regulations and research permits. In addition, the bill calls for comprehensive assessment and monitoring of the effects of both governmental and nongovernmental activities on the fragile Antarctic ecosystem. It also would continue indefinitely a ban on Antarctic mineral resource activities. Finally, the bill amends the act to prevent pollution from ships to implement provisions of the protocol relating to protection of marine resources. Before closing, I would like to thank Senator Hollings, ranking Democrat on the Commerce Committee; the Department of State, especially Under Secretary for Global Affairs Tim Wirth and Tucker Scully of the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs; Dr. Neil Sullivan, Director of Polar Programs, and Larry Rudolph of the National Science Foundation; and other interested parties including Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, and especially the Antarctica Project and its director Beth Marks for their hard work and assistance in developing this bill. As one of the founders of the Antarctic Treaty System, the United States has an obligation to enact strong implementing legislation, and our action to complete ratification of the protocol is long overdue. I urge my colleagues' support, and prompt action to enact the Antarctic Science, Tourism, and Conservation Act of 1996. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record immediately following my statement.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last September the Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Brown that allowed the administration to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Pakistan. In doing so, we decided to ignore Pakistan's continuing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to carry them, and we turned our backs on United States non-proliferation law and international arms control agreements. Today, I am pleased to cosponsor a bill being introduced by Senator Pressler that will repeal this misguided provision and will help put U.S. nonproliferation policy back on track. During Senate consideration of the Brown amendment, the proponents, including the administration, argued that transferring the military equipment would remove what had become an irritant in our relations with Pakistan and would result in enhanced cooperation on nonproliferation issues. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. Even as we debated the Brown amendment we had clear and convincing evidence that Pakistan had received M-11 ballistic missiles from China--a sanctionable offense under the Missile Technology Control Regime. We now know that Pakistan also has continued to pursue its Nuclear Weapons Program. In an unclassified hearing earlier this year, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch testified to the Intelligence Committee that he was especially concerned about Pakistani efforts to acquire nuclear technology. Although he did not provide details, the press has reported that last summer China sent Pakistan specialized magnets for use in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. Such a transfer would violate the 1994 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Finally, Director Deutch told the Intelligence Committee that Pakistan was likely to test a nuclear weapon if India did, hardly the restraint we were promised. Since the late 1970's the Pakistani Government has repeatedly assured the United States that it does not possess nuclear weapons despite our certainty that it does. As recently as November of 1994, Prime Minister Bhutto said in an interview with David Frost ``We have neither detonated one, nor have we got nuclear weapons.'' Now they are practicing the same deception with regard to acquiring missiles from China. In July of 1995, a press release from the Pakistan Embassy asserted that ``Pakistan has not acquired the M-11 or any other missile from China that violates the Missile Technology Control Regime.'' The evidence to the contrary is, in my opinion, overwhelming. Pakistan has been a friend and ally of the United States since its independence. But how many times can you let a friend mislead you and how many times can you let a friend put you in danger before you are forced to change the nature of the relationship. This is not a question of whether we want good relations with Pakistan. Of course we do. We want good relations with all countries, but the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems to carry them is far more important to our national security than relations with any one country. Indeed, this is one of the most important national security issues facing us today. I congratulate my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership on this issue and I am pleased to cosponsor his legislation. I hope that we can address this issue before the transfer of this equipment is completed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last September the Senate approved an amendment offered by Senator Brown that allowed the administration to deliver hundreds of millions of dollars worth of military equipment to Pakistan. In doing so, we decided to ignore Pakistan's continuing efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and the ballistic missiles to carry them, and we turned our backs on United States non-proliferation law and international arms control agreements. Today, I am pleased to cosponsor a bill being introduced by Senator Pressler that will repeal this misguided provision and will help put U.S. nonproliferation policy back on track. During Senate consideration of the Brown amendment, the proponents, including the administration, argued that transferring the military equipment would remove what had become an irritant in our relations with Pakistan and would result in enhanced cooperation on nonproliferation issues. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. Even as we debated the Brown amendment we had clear and convincing evidence that Pakistan had received M-11 ballistic missiles from China--a sanctionable offense under the Missile Technology Control Regime. We now know that Pakistan also has continued to pursue its Nuclear Weapons Program. In an unclassified hearing earlier this year, Director of Central Intelligence John Deutch testified to the Intelligence Committee that he was especially concerned about Pakistani efforts to acquire nuclear technology. Although he did not provide details, the press has reported that last summer China sent Pakistan specialized magnets for use in centrifuges to produce enriched uranium. Such a transfer would violate the 1994 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act. Finally, Director Deutch told the Intelligence Committee that Pakistan was likely to test a nuclear weapon if India did, hardly the restraint we were promised. Since the late 1970's the Pakistani Government has repeatedly assured the United States that it does not possess nuclear weapons despite our certainty that it does. As recently as November of 1994, Prime Minister Bhutto said in an interview with David Frost ``We have neither detonated one, nor have we got nuclear weapons.'' Now they are practicing the same deception with regard to acquiring missiles from China. In July of 1995, a press release from the Pakistan Embassy asserted that ``Pakistan has not acquired the M-11 or any other missile from China that violates the Missile Technology Control Regime.'' The evidence to the contrary is, in my opinion, overwhelming. Pakistan has been a friend and ally of the United States since its independence. But how many times can you let a friend mislead you and how many times can you let a friend put you in danger before you are forced to change the nature of the relationship. This is not a question of whether we want good relations with Pakistan. Of course we do. We want good relations with all countries, but the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the delivery systems to carry them is far more important to our national security than relations with any one country. Indeed, this is one of the most important national security issues facing us today. I congratulate my colleague from South Dakota for his leadership on this issue and I am pleased to cosponsor his legislation. I hope that we can address this issue before the transfer of this equipment is completed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our laws play an important role in fostering a competitive economic environment by establishing ground rules for fair competition and by helping to reduce the costs of doing business. But our laws play an even more critical role in protecting the rights of individuals, workers, and consumers. Congress, therefore, has a special responsibility to ensure that the laws we write are reasonable and fair. The conference report on H.R. 956, the so-called Common Sense Product Liability Reform Act of l996, fails the ``reasonable and fair'' test. The conference report, if enacted, will take away the rights U.S. citizens enjoy today in seeking redress for harm caused by unsafe products while giving manufacturers no incentive to produce safer products. This conference report is not fair to the working men and women of this country. It is biased against low-income individuals, women, and the elderly and it is plain dangerous for consumers. The products liability conference report will overturn the laws of every State and, I fear, will do great harm. Consider that every year thousands of workers are injured or killed as a direct result of defects in products they use in the workplace. For many of them, the tort system is the only recourse for full redress of their injuries. Yet, this conference report will make it harder for workers to hold fully accountable those who cause the injury. The limits on joint liability for non-economic damages, on punitive damages, on seller liability and the greatly expanded coverage under the statute of repose are all one-sided. Together, these provisions clearly favor wealthy corporations at the expense of working Americans. The 15-year statute of repose would affect more than one-half of the products claims filed against machine tool manufacturers. Under the conference report, workers injured by defective machinery 15 years after first delivery would be prohibited from seeking to prove in court that even a grossly negligent manufacturer was responsible for their injury. On the other hand, the right of the business to pursue an action against the same manufacturer for commercial loss would be fully preserved. The conference report would cap punitive damages at $250,000 or two times compensatory damages, whichever is greater, except in cases involving small businesses with fewer than 25 employees, where punitives would be capped at $250,000 or two times compensatories, whichever is the lesser amount. Such limits clearly undermine the deterrent value of punitive damages. The threat of punitive damages has in part contributed to the recall, discontinuance, or change in the use of many dangerous and defective products, including the Ford Pinto, asbestos, the Dalkon shield, the Suzuki Samurai, heart valves, and silicone breast implants. Punitive damages have also helped make products safer: the redesign of the Jeep CJ-5; adding guards to chainsaws; the replacement of lap-belts with rear-seat three-point safety belts in passenger cars; the use of roll bars on farm tractors; warnings on toxic household chemicals; the use of flame-retardant fabric in children's sleepwear; and the list goes on and on. The conference report will defang the threat inherent in punitive damages. But perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this legislation is that Ford Motor calculated that it was cheaper under the current tort system to settle rather than to try to protect the lives of every Pinto owner with a recall. The manufacturers of silicone breast implants calculated it was cheaper under the current tort system to continue selling implants that their own sales force reported had leakage problems rather than to alert the more than 1 million women in this country with implants about the danger of the products. Playtex calculated it was cheaper to continue to market its super-absorbent tampon than to try to warn women about the deadly effects of toxic shock syndrome. If Ford Motor, Dow, Playtex, and other major manufacturers failed to take corrective action to make their products safer under the present tort system, there is no reason to expect this conference report will encourage them to act more responsibly. Would anyone settle for $250,000 in exchange for losing a loved one to death by a product that the manufacturer knew was unsafe? If this conference report becomes law, no one would be able to get even $250,000 because there is not a lawyer in this country who would take the case. No law firm could afford to go up against companies like Ford Motor or Dow or others with their host of attorneys and huge legal budgets and an infinite ability to push motions and appeals to the limit and slow down the process to their advantage. It just would not happen. Proponents of this legislation stress that the current tort system is biased against them: they point to insurance rates that disable American manufacturers by forcing them to pay 10 to 50 times more for product liability insurance than their foreign competitors; they claim there is an ``explosion'' in products liability litigation, with uncontrollable punitive damages awards; and they argue that the present system of ``lottery'' liability, where liability differs from state to state, does not enhance the safety of U.S. products. The proponents are wrong on each of these points. Over the past decade, products liability insurance cost 26 cents per $100 of retail product sales, or about $26 on the price of a $10,000 automobile. Two recent reports by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners confirm there is no ``crisis'' in the cost of product liability insurance. In fact, the Association reported in January l995 that earned premiums for product liability have steadily dropped from more than $2.1 billion in l989 to $1.6 billion in l994--a drop of 26 percent. The Association pointed to shifts to self-insurance and competition in the industry as reasons for the decline, but did not mention tort reform as a factor. Moreover, the Association reported in October l995 that the premium volume for product liability insurance premiums has remained virtually flat from l986 through l994. The so-called explosion in products cases is another myth. While consumer products are responsible for some 39,000 deaths and 30 million injuries each year, a l993 study by Boston's Suffolk University Law School and Northeastern University found there were only 355 awards in products suits from l965 through l990, and that half of these were overturned or reduced. Indeed, the National Center for State Courts reported that product liability cases accounted for .0036 percent of the total civil case load in l992, and the Legal Times reported that products claims in Federal courts declined by 36 percent from l985 to l991. In my own state of Massachusetts, there were absolutely no punitive damages awarded in products cases; punitive damages are only permitted in wrongful death cases. The conference report on H.R. 956 will not resolve the problem of 51 different products liability laws in the United States. On the contrary, it will only serve to further complicate the tort system and tilt it strongly in favor of manufacturers and against consumers. The conference report contains only one-way preemption. The conference report places caps on punitive damages in products cases, yet allows the laws to stand in the 39 States where those laws prohibit punitive damage awards or where they place more restrictions on victims' rights. On the other hand, the conference report does not require that these States award punitive damages. The conference report preempts State law on misuse or alteration of a product only to the extent state law is inconsistent with the conference report, meaning that the 37 States that provide a complete defense to liability in some cases of product misuse or alteration would not be preempted. The conference report prohibits lawsuits involving durable goods that are more than 15 years old, but specifically preserves State laws with shorter limitations. The Products Liability Fairness Act, S. 565, will overturn the laws of every State that enable people who have been harmed by unsafe or faulty products from obtaining full and fair recovery. It will prevent citizens from holding wrongdoers accountable. It will preempt legitimate claims that deserve to be heard. It will strip citizens of their rights and it should be rejected. I cannot support legislation that would have placed limits on punitive damages for the family of the 5-year-old boy in New Bedford, MA, who died in a house fire after igniting a couch with matches. I cannot support legislation that would have limited damages for the family of the 8-month-old boy who suffered second and third degree burns on his arms, legs and back in a house fire that started when the bedding in his crib was ignited by a portable electric heater that had been placed within 6 inches of his crib to keep him warm. I surely cannot support legislation that would have limited the liability of the big corporations in Woburn, MA, whose highly toxic pollutants killed and injured children. The Woburn case, in which eight working class families sued two of our Nation's biggest corporations because they suspected the companies had polluted the water supply with highly toxic industrial solvents, took 9 years. The young attorney that pleaded the case spent $1 million of his own money on it. The jury ultimately found one of the companies negligent, and the scientific research done during the 9-year trial demonstrated the link between the industrial solvents in the water supply and human disease. The company is now helping to cleanup the polluted aquifer. The attorney has said that if this bill were law today, he would never have considered the case. Mr. President, the conference report on H.R. 956 will take away the right every American enjoys today through the jury box to force accountability for dangerous, careless or reckless behavior. In the jury box, every American can bring about positive change. If we take away this fundamental right, we will have compromised our Nation's core values. The conference report promotes the interests of business at the expense of the rights of consumers. It will create a nightmarish new legal thicket that should be avoided rather than embraced. After we have argued all the complicated points of law, after we have poured over horror story after horror story, the issues boil down to one simple point: this bill is not fair, it is not reasonable and it should be rejected.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my Republican colleagues will come to this floor and vote for millions of dollars in corporate welfare, and then vote against providing $168 to assist a 73-year-old widow in New Bedford to pay her heating bill. They'll vote to fund the Defense Department at a level above what the Defense Department has requested, and they'll turn around and vote against 143,000 families in Massachusetts. All this sense of the Senate does, Mr. President, is ask the President to release about $300 million in emergency assistance LIHEAP funding to people who need it. It's been a long, cold winter in New England and across this country--a record amount of snow has fallen in my State--and it has been very, very cold. Too many people just can't pay their heating bills. We simply should do the right thing and release this money. This year, those in Massachusetts who need help paying their heating bills are going to receive about $20 million less than they did last year. The release of emergency funds still won't bring us close to what was received last year, but it will help hard-working families struggling to make ends meet, seniors who are having the safety net stripped from beneath them in this Congress, and the disabled who deserve our help. Mr. President, if my Republican colleagues can vote in unison for millions of unnecessary dollars for defense, I would like to hope they could do as much to release a few extra dollars already appropriated to help people financially survive the winter.