John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Well, Madam President, let me say that I want to thank the distinguished chairman and his staff. This has been a complicated and long negotiating process. But I think it has been one where both parties fairly attempted to try to work the best compromise possible to effect some very complicated changes within the structure of our foreign policy establishment. I am convinced that what we have achieved here is a strong beginning for a reevaluation of how we are doing business, of the responsibilities of these various agencies and departments. I am convinced that as the parties proceed in good faith into the conference itself, that we have an opportunity to make our delivery of the foreign policy product of this country far more effective, far more efficient, and the taxpayers of this country will benefit significantly from the changes which are promoted here. The chairman has stood his ground on many issues and fought hard, as have we. And I think, as in all efforts to make the compromise, this represents exactly that, a sound meeting of the minds and a sound effort to try to bring the parties together. I am convinced that it is a good product. There are still some issues that we need to work on. The chairman understands that. I understand that. Members understand that. But I think what we have done, by breaking through here in the last week, is to bring the committee back together in an important way and to indicate that we are all intending to do our utmost to try to see to it that there is a strong bipartisan effort to present the strongest possible future work product from this important committee. And I thank the chairman for his continued efforts even when the road was difficult to keep the lines of communication open and to help to make this happen. [[Page S 18231]]

Mr. KERRY. Procedural, as to procedural issues that have now been set forth within the context of the unanimous consent agreement--and there is no need to repeat those. And the chairman has agreed to schedule hearings for early next year, with committee action on the convention in the early spring for the Chemical Weapons Convention. It is also the understanding that the committee will resume normal activities with respect to the scheduling of hearings and committee actions on all currently pending nominees and other committee business.

Mr. KERRY. With respect to conference issues as to consolidation, there is an agreement that the Senate conferees will operate under consensus with respect to the consolidation proposal regarding mandatory cost savings, the abolition of the agencies, and the limitations as to where those cost savings may be achieved?

Mr. KERRY. With respect to the authorization levels, there is an agreement that those authorization levels currently set out in the bill will be addressed in conference with an understanding among the parties that we will make a good-faith effort and seek to increase the levels of operating accounts for the agencies affected by the bill.

Mr. KERRY. With respect to Iraqi claims, there is a compromise which contemplates satisfying licensing for those people with letters of advice while simultaneously expanding--compromise language which we arrived at this evening which basically splits the difference between the parties with respect to the concerns that have been expressed.

Mr. KERRY. With respect to other bill issues, there is agreement on language reflected in a summary of changes in Division A which will be made a part of the Record. There is a deletion of section 168 based on Senator Dodd's request in writing to have this dealt with in conference on the Cuban Liberty and Solidarity Act. There is a deletion of section 603 relating to coercive population control policies. And there is an addition of $10 million in fiscal year 1996 for the East-West Center pursuant to an agreement between the chairman and ranking member and Senator Inouye.

Mr. KERRY. In that case, Madam President, if I may, I would like to review with the Senator very briefly those items as we understand them that are summarized within H.R. 1561. On Monday when we take up this issue we have agreed, have we not, that as to the issue of consolidation, that we have agreed on compromise language with technical changes which will propound a $1.7 billion savings over 5 years with a baseline of fiscal year 1995 at the appropriated level, that there would be no mandatory abolition of agencies, there would be not more than 30 percent of the savings realized for programmatic reductions, and there would be not more than 15 percent of the savings realized from State Department administrative accounts. Does the chairman agree with my summary of the consolidation?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. That is as to both the Chemical Weapons Convention as well as the nomination of Katie McGinty to be Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would ask the distinguished chairman--I believe at this point are the colloquies of Senator Daschle and Senator Dole now a part of the record?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it will be my intention to review for the record briefly the summary as agreed upon of the amendment to H.R. 1561. Before I do, however, I would like to inquire of the chairman the following. Madam President, a number of Members from the Senate on both sides of the aisle have been very concerned, and the ranking member shares this concern, about the disposition of the Chemical Weapons Convention which was submitted to the Congress many months ago, and since that time it has been pending before the Foreign Relations Committee. I would like to ask the chairman concerning the Chemical Weapons Convention. I am aware that the committee's consideration of this treaty is not as far along as the consideration of [[Page S 18230]] START II and that several members of the committee have a number of questions about it and its implications that they believe must be explored more fully before they are prepared to act on the treaty. I ask the chairman if he would describe his commitment to the committee and the Senate on action on the Chemical Weapons Convention.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the conference report appropriating funds for the Departments of Commerce, State and Justice for fiscal year l996. The funding levels contained in this report are no better than those contained in its predecessor that the President vetoed. I have expressed earlier my extremely serious reservations about the provisions relating to the Justice Department and the elimination of the Cops on the Beat Program that I and many of us worked so hard to enact. I now would like to focus my comments briefly on those provisions of the conference report that deal a serious blow to the Commerce Department's technology programs as well as to the provisions relating to Vietnam. Many of the Commerce Department technology programs, like the Advanced Technology Program and the Manufacturing Extension Program, have played a pivotal role in the start-up of high-technology and biotech businesses and the growth of jobs in these sectors in my State of Massachusetts. The conference report completely zeros-out funding for any new projects that would have been supported by the Advanced Technology Program, or ATP. The ATP had been funded at a level of $323 million in fiscal year l995, and the President had requested more than $490 million for this program in fiscal l996. Companies that had applied for new project funding to bring enabling technologies to the point of commercialization will be denied funds under this bill. This will hurt a number of firms in my State, including Dynamet Technology of Burlington which is developing surgical implant components, Gensym Corp. of Cambridge which is developing variable air conditioning systems and the Lorron Corp. of Burlington that is working to upgrade fire protection modeling codes. I had hoped the Senate figure of more than $100 million would prevail. Instead, the elimination of funding for this program will deal a severe set-back to many start-up and other high-technology firms in my State. The conference report preserves $80 million in funding for the Manufacturing Extension Program [MEP]. Through the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Bay State Skills, MEP has provided valuable, hands-on technical and management consulting on manufacturing processes for small and mid-sized businesses. MEP estimates that every dollar of its support generates $15 in economic growth for the local community. The funding cut contained in this report will hurt companies like Alpha Industries of Woburn, whose 600 employees are successfully making the transition from manufacturing semiconductors for the Defense Department to a commercial product operation. Among many other programs in my State that will be hurt as a result of funding reductions or terminations in the conference report are the Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Institute, which has leveraged venture capital funds for new biotechnology companies in and around Worcester, and the textile center at the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth, which had hoped to become the first university outside the Southeastern United States to participate in the National Textile University Centers. Cutbacks in the National Telecommunications and Infrastructure Assistance Program will hurt groups in my State that are seeking to get on the information superhighway. Among them are the Executive Office of Education in Boston that is developing a statewide, integrated, interactive voice and data network, called the Massachusetts Information Infrastructure. This network will begin by connecting 20 of an estimated 352 sites at libraries of K-12 schools and higher education institutions, local government and health and community organizations throughout Massachusetts. More than 80 other entities in my State have sought assistance from this program, but are not likely to receive any help in the face of the proposed funding cuts. I would now like to turn briefly to the State Department title of the bill that relates to Vietnam. The conference report conditions the establishment of an embassy in Vietnam on a certification by the President with respect to Vietnamese cooperation on providing POW/MIA information. As the former chairman of the Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs, I believe that no one has worked harder or more conscientiously to ensure that our Nation and the families of our POW/MIA's get answers to the fate of these heroes. But I believe the way we secure continued and even enhanced assistance from the Vietnamese is by engagement. I believe this provision could have the perverse effect of setting back our efforts. This amendment, offered by the House in conference, is really a thinly disguised effort to undermine the administration's decision to normalize relations with Vietnam, and it is contrary to the Senate's position opposing direct linkage of the POW/MIA issue and the process of normalizing relations with Vietnam. Mr. President, being a strong supporter of the Cops on the Beat and other anticrime programs administered by the Justice Department, being a staunch advocate for the international trade, technology, environmental and fisheries programs carried out by the Commerce Department and being a steadfast advocate for the resolution of international conflicts through diplomatic means, it pains me to have to oppose this conference report. But I must and I will, knowing that the funding cuts and terminations will not sustain the programs we must have to keep our streets and communities safe, to keep our economy vibrant and to promote job creation and to maintain our presence in and the peace of this world.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from South Carolina. I may not use the entire time, but I would like to pick up where I left off in the questioning with the Senator from Delaware. There is not anybody in America who has not become so aware--I think ``overwhelmed'' is a better term--by the level of violence that seems to consume this country at this time. I think it reached a new level of depravity with the story a few weeks ago when a woman was murdered and cut open so that her live fetus could be taken out by animals who somehow had the notion that it was an acceptable way to give someone else a live child. We are raising sociopaths in this country at a rate that ought to alarm every American. I think it does alarm them, and it somehow rings rhetorical alarm bells in Congress, but it just does not produce a response that is adequate. I think most Americans know that. I think most Americans understand that unless the 36 percent of children nationwide who are born out of wedlock, who have little prospect of anybody in their lives giving them some values, unless the prospect of those kids gaining some sense of what this country and civil behavior is all about increases, we are going to see a lot worse in the next 10 or 15 years. What astonishes me, Mr. President, is that every analysis by competent people, every criminologist, every researcher in the field of youth violence, is telling us that this Nation is going to see a wave of criminal activity among our young unless we do something about it. The response in this bill, notwithstanding good efforts by good people to take a minimal number of resources and shift them around, is just inadequate. It is simply inadequate when we know that we have one- tenth the number of the police force we had 30 years ago--when people are scared to go out of their home at night--go to a part of town that they know may not be safe at night--when people are worried whether or not their car will be stolen when they go out. The greatest single message and deterrent in taking back the streets from that fear and from that kind of thug dominance are police officers. The Senator from Delaware said that 15 years ago--this is a fact we talked about many times--we had 3.5 police officers per violent crime in America. Today we have anywhere from 3.5 to 4.6 violent crimes per police officer. It is not rocket science to begin to understand the relationship between putting the police officer on the street and the ability to deter crime. Most thugs do not go out and walk into a 7-11 or a gas station when there is a cop standing 40 yards away or where there is someone that is on a regular patrol and they know the chances of being apprehended are pretty good. The problem in America is that over the last 10 or 15 years we have sent a message to people that the probability of being apprehended is not so good. In fact, Mr. President, two out of five people who commit murders in America will never cross the threshold of a police station, let alone a courthouse. We have also learned that in community after community after community where we have put police officers on the street in community policing, life has improved. Just this past week the Attorney General visited Lowell, MA, where we managed to get a Federal grant to help create a community policing entity in a part of town that had seen pimps and prostitutes and drug gangs take over the streets. The moment the police came in, the pimps and prostitutes and drug gangs disappeared and the stores on that street came back to life and seniors began to say, ``We can come out of our house again and walk to the store.'' It is basic. Here we have a bill that turns its back on the pleas of police officers, on the pleas of local communities and suggests that somehow we are going to be better off by creating a block grant where communities will now compete against all the other interests in the community in law enforcement rather than going to the priority that we chose--which is putting police officers on the street. I suppose block grants might be conceivable if you had the resources being dedicated in all the other areas so that you could make a difference. But the fact is, we do not have those resources in the other areas, and we know it. The police should not have to compete against the computers, against the cruisers, against the equipment, against floodlights for a jail, that we need. If they do then we are going to go back to where we started from--that prompted us to guarantee that there are well equipped police officers on our streets. Mr. President, about 11 percent of all our crimes in this country occur each year in our 85,000 public schools. It is estimated today that 1 out of 20 students brings a gun to school at least once a month. We understand that perhaps more than 200,000 students in America now pack weapons along with their lunches because of their fear of violence in and on the way to school. According to the National School Safety Center, nearly 3 million crimes are committed in, near, or around a school campus every year. That is one crime almost every 6 seconds that a school is in session. So, Mr. President, this is not a smart approach to the problems of increased criminal activity in this country. It is not enough. If this represents the best that we can do at a time when the country is in crisis, then we ought to be forced to go back to the drawing board and do better. Mr. President, violence is an epidemic in America that knows no local [[Page S 18154]] or State boundaries. It is spilling over into thousands of communities across America. In September, in Massachusetts, a young prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Paul R. McLaughlin, was gunned down by a hooded youth in a display of a level of gang violence and immorality unprecedented in this country. It was a brutal assassination of a public servant doing his job--the kind of violence we see in other nations, but not in America. Against that backdrop, it is ironic that I have to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to plead with some of my colleagues to keep cops on the street--to plead for them to abandon ideology and their own political agenda and respond to do what is right, not what is expedient. I fear, Mr. President, that our head-long rush to balance the budget at any cost--even the cost of the life a young prosecutor--is irrational, irresponsible, shortsighted, and immoral. Now, I know that perhaps nothing could have stopped this brutal murder, but we have to ask ourselves today, what are our priorities. What kind of people are we if we chose the bottom line over the lives of public officials. If we rigidly hold to extremist dogma no matter who gets hurt and who suffers. Mr. President, let us bring this debate about Commerce-Justice-State appropriations to where it belongs--with the will of people--the concerns of thousands of local police officials who came to Washington to testify year after year for us to give them directly the tools they need to fight crime on the streets. And almost 8-years later we are here virtually thumbing our noses at them and doing so in the same week that violence on the streets has reached a dangerous new level. The real issue before the Senate is not which formula we should adopt. Yes, there are real differences. The formula of the Republican bill allows much more discretion to State Governors, as to how the money will be spent. Last year we required that the money go directly to police departments, because we know the sorry history of police funding. From 1971 to 1990, as the country was literally drowning in a tidal wave of crime, and still is, our Governors and mayors and legislatures--indeed the entire political structure--engaged in a policy of unilateral disarmament. From 1971 to 1990, in the midst of this crime wave, we increased spending on lawyers and public defenders by over 200 percent. We increased prison spending by 156 percent. We increased spending on State and local police by all of 12 percent. So in last year's bill, we said, we are going to give control over this money, this relative pittance of Federal funding, directly from the Federal Government to the cops who need it. We said, ``We are going to require that the money be spent on police.'' Now the new majority wants to take all the Federal money, and give it back to Governors to control. Perhaps, this time, they will in fact spend it all on police, and do so wisely. This will be a real test, and we will all be watching; not just those of us in the Senate, but the American people, suffering the ravages of crime and violence, all over America. That suffering, its magnitude, the utter disgrace it represents for every man and woman in this Chamber, that is the real issue before us. It is estimated that crime has increased by more than 600 percent since 1950. Communities have been ravaged by indiscriminate acts of violence. Such acts have been and are eating away at the core of our cities and towns, and the impact on our schools has been devastating. I do not believe that there has been a rural, urban, or suburban school that has escaped its grasp. Families have been destroyed, lawlessness has exploded, and many young people have watched first hand as their friends and relatives were killed in front of them. Such killings have left an indelible impact on the lives of these young people--an impression that will stay with each of them forever. Mr. President, the problems of crime and violence that we talk about today are not new, but have been at least 30 years in the making. During this time we have watched violence emerge as one of the leading public health epidemics in the United States. As the people of this Nation and the Congress prepare to do battle over whether and how to restructure our national health care system, let us not forget two important facts. First, the medical costs associated with gun violence in 1992 have been estimated at approximately $3 billion. Second, average charges for a young gunshot patient in 1991 equaled the cost of a year of tuition, room and board at a private college-- about $14,000. Mr. President, crime and violence have reached into every part of our daily lives and that of our children. No American, no matter what age, has escaped its wrath and its impact on education has been so severe that 10 percent or more of the Nation's largest school districts have installed metal detectors this year than last year. As shocking as this has become, even more alarming is why so many schools have been forced to do this. First, about 11 percent of all crimes occur each year in America's 85,000 public schools. Second, it is estimated that one in 20 students bring a gun to school at least once a month. Third, it has been said that more than 200,000 students pack weapons along with their lunches because of fear of violence in, or on the way to school. Finally, according to the National School Safety Center, nearly 3 million crimes are committed in or near a school campus every year-- about 1 every 6 seconds that a school is in session. Mr. President, as this Congress talks about the problems of crime and violence, the inescapable reality is that the conditions described above create an educational environment that thwarts the efforts of public school teachers to educate students; it impedes teaching and learning, and underscores one of the main reasons why more and more parents are refusing to send their children to public school. But before another member of this body stands up to criticize public schools and public school teachers, it is time each of us consider the environment many public school teachers find themselves trying to teach in. In urban America, that environment has been hostile not only to teaching, but to life itself. Students committing indiscriminate acts of violence against another student because of drugs, clothing, or simply because they wanted to. In fact, the arrest rate for juveniles aged 10-17 for weapon law violations increased 117 percent between 1983 and 1992. It is no longer enough to say that you cannot teach a child who comes to school hungry. The problem today is well beyond the single issue of hunger that previously confronted public school teachers. Today's problems are multifaceted and to a greater degree than ever before, are compounded by crime and violence on the way to, during and after school. Public school teachers today must now serve not only as teachers, but as counselors and referees, while also fearing for their own safety. What is before us therefore is the fact that both approaches--both the Democratic bill and the Republican bill, the 1994 crime bill and the 1995 appropriation--both of these efforts are woefully, shamefully inadequate. We are like doctors who discover, at long last, that our patient has cancer; and we are prescribing aspirin. Just as to police: the President told us, and he is correct, that we now have one-tenth the effective police strength of 30 years ago. Did he ask us for ten times the police, to return us to the levels of security we once knew? No. He did not suggest 5 million new police. He did not ask us for 1 million. He did not ask us to, and we did, even double the police we now have. He asked us, we will remember, for funds to add perhaps 30,000 new police. We, in the Senate, last year, Democrats and Republicans, joined to increase the number to a possible 100,000. But we did not by that act begin to solve the problem, or meet the needs of the country. What do we need? The American people are already paying, out of their own pockets, for about 1.5 million private police--three times the number of police paid for by taxes, on public payrolls. They are not available to work where the real problems are. They are not trained to work the mean streets [[Page S 18155]] where crime and criminal activity breed. They protect only enclaves. Is that to be our strategy, as in the Vietnam of long ago--to protect only the enclaves of the comfortable, and business, and leave the rest of our own fellow citizens alone and unprotected? In Vietnam, I saw a lot of wonderful men give their lives for this country: not for some abstraction, not for a piece of colored cloth. But for their families, and for their fellows, and for the children that too many of them never lived to see. Are we keeping faith with them? Are we protecting their children and grandchildren today? Are we doing our duty to preserve the country for which they, as so many before them in the history of the Nation, gave the last full measure of devotion? So let us vote these funds today. But let us understand that this bill is less than a beginning, less than a start. It is my understanding that there will be offered, later this year, a new substantive crime bill. At that time I intend to offer amendments that will substantially increase authorized spending assistance to State and local law enforcement, and to perhaps begin the debate we should have had long before this time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. From 1971 to 1990, in the midst of this increase in crime wave, and in the midst of the diminution in the number of police officers, we increased the Federal spending on lawyers and public defenders by 200 percent, and we increased prison spending by 156 percent. But we only increased the spending on police officers by 12 percent. I ask the Senator, is it not true that the effort to put 100,000 police directly into the streets of America--the least costly, the least administratively overburdened manner--was a direct response from police officers themselves, from police chiefs themselves, and from mayors all across this country who simply did not have the ability to respond to this crime wave?

Mr. KERRY. As a preface to a couple of questions, I'd like to thank the Senator and ask to be completely associated with his comments--the extraordinary, astute, and accurate comments--that precede these questions. I also would preface it by saying that there is nobody in the Senate who has worked harder to produce a real comprehensive, systemic response to crime than the Senator from Delaware. But, is it not true--I ask the Senator having worked together with him on this question of police officers and cops on our streets--that today we have, I believe, one-tenth the effective strength of police officers in the streets that we had 30 years ago? Is that not true?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join in commending President Clinton for his historic visit to Ireland, Northern Ireland, and England. Those of us who support peace in Northern Ireland watched as the President and First Lady lit the Christmas tree--sent from Tennessee with the help of the Vice President--in front of Belfast's City Hall last Thursday night. Thousands of people--Catholic and Protestant-- turned out to celebrate the beginning of the Christmas season and, more importantly, the peace that Northern Ireland has known for more than 15 months. In his remarks, the President spoke of the historic ties between the people of Northern Ireland and the United States and the bonds we continue to build. Mostly, he and the First Lady spoke of the children of Northern Ireland and their hopes and dreams for a lasting peace. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks of the President and the First Lady may be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide Prevention Act. Mr. President, my bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by my friend, Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. This bill is a modest beginning to address a pernicious crisis among our teenagers. The bill establishes a Federal commission seeks to identify the root causes and report on possible methods to prevent suicide among gay and lesbian adolescents. In 1989, then Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan, issued a report on youth suicide. The report's most dramatic findings included a particularly alarming statistic--nearly one-third of all teen suicide occurred among gay and lesbian youth. This is a disturbing trend. Instead of ignoring this epidemic as past administrations have chosen to do, the Commission my bill would establish will devise ways to address effectively the situations of gay youth in existing suicide prevention programs. It will make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on methods to curb suicide among gay teens. And it will expand existing research on youth suicide to include gay and lesbian adolescents. A full and appropriate airing of these issues will mean the beginning of the end of the tragic waste of young life in our country that the suicides of gay teens represent. Although the benefits from the Commission will be great, its cost will not. The Commission will use the existing resources of the Department of Health and Human Services. The members of the Commission will not be paid. And the Commission will not be another of the Government bodies that, once established, endures to eternity. It will sunset 6 months after its initial meeting. Too often, Mr. President, we hear stories of harassment and abuse which lead to depression, emotional problems and suicide. We cannot ignore the obvious fact that gay and lesbian youth are subjected to enormous societal pressure and we certainly cannot turn our back on the chilling evidence that gay and lesbian youth are three times more likely to commit suicide than other young people. Current official youth suicide prevention programs do not address this issue, and it is high time they did. We need to get serious about putting an end to this preventable epidemic. That is what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Gay and Lesbian Youth Suicide Prevention Act. Mr. President, my bill is a companion to legislation introduced in the House of Representatives by my friend, Congressman Martin Meehan of Massachusetts. This bill is a modest beginning to address a pernicious crisis among our teenagers. The bill establishes a Federal commission seeks to identify the root causes and report on possible methods to prevent suicide among gay and lesbian adolescents. In 1989, then Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Dr. Louis Sullivan, issued a report on youth suicide. The report's most dramatic findings included a particularly alarming statistic--nearly one-third of all teen suicide occurred among gay and lesbian youth. This is a disturbing trend. Instead of ignoring this epidemic as past administrations have chosen to do, the Commission my bill would establish will devise ways to address effectively the situations of gay youth in existing suicide prevention programs. It will make recommendations to the Secretary of HHS on methods to curb suicide among gay teens. And it will expand existing research on youth suicide to include gay and lesbian adolescents. A full and appropriate airing of these issues will mean the beginning of the end of the tragic waste of young life in our country that the suicides of gay teens represent. Although the benefits from the Commission will be great, its cost will not. The Commission will use the existing resources of the Department of Health and Human Services. The members of the Commission will not be paid. And the Commission will not be another of the Government bodies that, once established, endures to eternity. It will sunset 6 months after its initial meeting. Too often, Mr. President, we hear stories of harassment and abuse which lead to depression, emotional problems and suicide. We cannot ignore the obvious fact that gay and lesbian youth are subjected to enormous societal pressure and we certainly cannot turn our back on the chilling evidence that gay and lesbian youth are three times more likely to commit suicide than other young people. Current official youth suicide prevention programs do not address this issue, and it is high time they did. We need to get serious about putting an end to this preventable epidemic. That is what this bill does. I urge my colleagues to support this effort. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, one of my priorities is to foster a competitive business environment in Massachusetts and throughout the Nation that will lead to the creation of skilled, family-wage jobs. A significant factor in creating a favorable business environment is the ability to generate capital. The conference report before us today addresses the question of the so-called securities strike suits that have had a chilling effect on both the business climate and the generation of capital for Massachusetts' vanguard technology industries. This legislation has been the subject of intense debate. Some argue that in its attempt to end frivolous strike suits, it will deny investors the opportunity to recover losses from companies that engaged in fraudulent securities actions. This is a legitimate concern in view of some of the cases in Massachusetts in which companies repeatedly misrepresented sales, senior officers had to resign and some companies had to declare bankruptcy. Others have countered that the legislation does not go far enough to prevent frivolous strike suits based solely on stock fluctuations or missed earnings projections and that the attorneys who bring such suits should face the threat of a loser pays provision. As the Senate has considered various proposals to reform our Nation's securities laws in this area, I have been mindful of the fact that, indeed, there are investors on both sides of this issue. My principal goal--and the yardstick I have used to measure this legislation--is whether it achieves a balance between discouraging truly frivolous strike suits while ensuring companies and individuals are liable for actual fraud. Though not prefect, I do believe this legislation has struck a reasonable balance between protecting investors' rights and reducing the possibility that companies will be subject to frivolous strike suits. One factor that was extremely important in helping me reach a decision on this legislation was the Securities and Exchange Commission's evaluation of the conference report. The SEC, throughout the legislative process, had withheld its endorsement of the legislation. I am pleased that the SEC stated in a letter of November 15, 1995, that: ``We believe the draft conference report responds to our principal concerns.'' Of particular importance to me is the safe harbor language that is the product of months of consultation with the Securities and Exchange Commission. In my view this provision is the crux of the entire matter. The safe harbor affects a potential investor's decision of whether to purchase securities and it affects a company's ability to paint a rosy scenario to attract investors. It also directly affects the value of the benefits packages of the company's officers and employees. The conference report codifies the judicial ``bespeaks caution'' doctrine and will not allow a company simply to use boilerplate cautionary language. I am also pleased that the conference report adopts as title III legislation I sponsored originally with Representative Wyden to require audits of public companies designed to detect illegal acts. It places on accountants and company auditors a clear responsibility for early detection and disclosure of illegal actions by management. This title requires auditors to inform immediately the management and/or the SEC of illegal acts having a material impact on the issuer's financial statements. I believe these procedures for early detection and disclosure of fraud by the accountants and auditors will serve the interests of both investors and businesses. The conference report should lead to the creation of a more favorable climate for investors and businesses. Investors should gain better information about the marketplace, more control over securities strike suits and more leverage in recovering a larger share of their losses in strike suits. Businesses should gain the freedom to provide statements about the business outlook that investors and the SEC have encouraged and a more favorable climate for raising capital. I especially want to commend Senator Dodd, who has worked tirelessly on this tough issue, and Senator Domenici for their effort in achieving a reasonable and balanced bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I believe there was an effort on the floor to try to suggest that the tax cut ought to go to people--and I understand the Senator is absolutely correct, if you are talking about the folks under $30,000 with the earned-income tax credit, you are obviously talking about a group of people who also need an additional amount of money that comes in the form of a check at the lower end of that scale in order to make it meaningful. That is not what we are talking about. There was a suggestion on the floor of the Senate that the tax cut ought to be limited to those people earning $100,000 or less, and that can certainly be framed in a combination of payroll credit-family credit or any combination thereof, but at least in terms of keeping faith with the notion of fairness there is a clear juxtaposition, is there not, between those earning $100,000 or less, a broad-based capital gains tax that might go to old investments versus new investments? Or, for instance, an estate tax break that goes to people only with $600,000 or $700,000 of estate value. It seems those are difficult fairness issues to try to suggest to the American people that we are approaching this seriously.

Mr. KERRY. I am delighted to hear our friend on the other side of the aisle talk common sense, which seems to have been lacking here in much of the dialog over the last days. Many of us over here feel very strongly that the issue of a tax cut in the face of this deficit is a morality question, but I think the Senator from Rhode Island has appropriately suggested, we all need some flexibility. I ask the Senator, then, does he not think, if there ought to be some tax cut, if that is part of the gospel here, does the Senator not agree that at least that tax cut ought to be targeted toward those Americans who can most benefit from it and also most need it?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to pick up, if I may, where the Senator from North Dakota leaves off. He talked about the dozens and dozens of nuggets that are in this bill. I know my colleague from Massachusetts is going to talk about some of those specific items. I would like to speak for a moment, if I may, about the word that the Senator from North Dakota kept using about priorities. I wish to emphasize, as I think every Democrat wants to emphasize, this debate is not about whether to balance the budget. We keep hearing Republican friends come to the floor, and they keep saying we have to do this because this is the only way to balance the budget. If we do not do this, the Democrats will not balance the budget. They do not want to balance the budget. Mr. President, this is not the only way to balance the budget. That is what this fight is about. And, indeed, the majority of Democrats have voted to balance the budget, balance it in 7 years--balance the budget. We voted for a 9-year balancing of the budget. The balancing of the budget is not what is at issue before America today. What is at issue is what choices will we make as we balance it. Now, it is uncontested--every analysis of our economy shows--that those Americans we keep talking about, the Americans who work every day the hardest, the people who go and punch in a clock or the people who are the nitty-gritty of the production of goods in this country, are working harder, and they are making less money for their effort. They have less ability to [[Page S 17450]] purchase, less ability to buy the new car, less ability to send their kid to get a decent education. Those are the people we ought to be fighting for. That is the majority of Americans. But the majority of Americans do not make out in this bill that was passed as well as people at the upper end of our scale. That is just not fair. I am at the upper end of the scale. Most of us in the Senate are at the upper end of the scale. The minute you get a U.S. Senator's salary, unsupplemented by anything else, you are up to the top tiny digits of wage earners in America. The truth is that we do better in this bill than the average American, and that is disgraceful. That is not what we were sent here to do. We ought to be able to go home and look people in the eye and say, ``You are going to do as well or better.'' We cannot do that. I know all the arguments are made, well, this is going to help people in the long term because it is going to reduce their income taxes, ultimately it is going to lower the interest rates. I agree that it can do all that. Balancing the budget can do all that. But I do not know any American--nobody in Massachusetts has come up to me and said, ``Senator, I want to live next to a Superfund site. I want to live next to a toxic waste site.'' But for some reason, in this budget the money to clean up those sites is reduced. I do not know anybody who has come to me in any community in Massachusetts and said, ``I don't think that people who have a drug addiction shouldn't get treatment.'' In fact, for all the rhetoric in the Senate about crime, 70 percent of the people in jail today are there on a drug-related offense or they are on drugs. If you want to deal with drugs in America, you are going to have to have drug treatment. And yet this budget cuts drug treatment. This budget cuts safe schools and drug-free schools money. I do not understand that. I do not understand how you make those cuts and turn around and give somebody with a $5 million asset base over $1 million worth of tax break. I used the word ``moral'' earlier. I do not want to offend anybody. It is not only my word. I have heard people like Pete Peterson, whom I respect enormously, former Commerce Secretary, Paul Tsongas, Warren Rudman of the Concord Coalition, they use that word, because if you have a $245 billion tax break, which you have, you are effectively borrowing $300 billion of money from future taxpayers and shifting it to current taxpayers. That is the very thing that supposedly this budget is geared to address. The whole purpose of balancing the budget today is to stop borrowing, and yet we are going to borrow in order to give this tax break to the people who least need it. This is a question of priorities. How do you explain to people in a nursing home, who are senior, that they are now going to have to become destitute and live under a whole new set of standards because in order to allow the nursing homes to meet the expectations of being able to reduce the cost, we are not going to do it in a sort of sensible, humane way; we are going to do it by changing the standards in nursing homes so that the people who own the nursing homes do not have to live up to the same standard of the provision of care so they can reduce the cost. This is about priorities. It is about what do we care about. One of the most egregious things that happens in America, has happened in the last 13 years, is that those people at the bottom end of the income scale, the bottom 20 percent saw their income go down over the last 13 years 17 percent. The next 20 percent of Americans saw their income go down 4 percent. The middle two percentiles of Americans stayed about the same. And the top quintile of Americans went up 105 percent in income. In a country that is increasingly competing against a world marketplace where information is power, where skill comes through your education level, where the kind of job you can have and the kind of income you can earn comes through your access to education, to be making it harder for Americans to get that education is simply inexplicable. But that is what this bill does. It is going to make about 1,200 of our educational institutions drop out of direct lending. About 1.8 million students are going to be dropped off of student loans. And many of us have been visited--the senior Senator from Massachusetts and I have been visited by our University of Massachusetts folks, who tell us that they are literally going to have kids drop out of school as a consequence of the increase in student loan costs because it is that marginal for them, their ability to be able to go to school in the first place. So, Mr. President, I share the feeling of the Senator from Rhode Island. There is a middle ground here. I absolutely agree with him. We must reduce the rate of growth in entitlements. We cannot have it both ways. And we cannot talk out of both sides of our mouth. I voted for a bill that reduced Medicare and reduced Medicaid, but not three times what the trustees tell us we need. I hope that my friend from Rhode Island and others on the Republican side would agree, look, there are 100 Senators here, you cannot come to the floor of the Senate and have 20 people decide, or 30 people, that it is just going to be their way. We have to have some compromise. We are prepared on our side, I know, to compromise on things that we do not necessarily agree with completely in the hopes that we will not wind up with such a lopsided, unfair, and, frankly, unwise approach to the problems of this country. We need to raise the income of Americans. And we are going to have to train them and educate them to do that. I know there is nobody on the other side of the aisle more committed to doing that than the Senator from Rhode Island. I must say to my friend from Rhode Island, I would love to do it in 7 years. I am prepared to commit to 7 years, if we can find a reasonable agreement on what you base your numbers on. But if somebody comes to me and says, Senator, we could balance this budget in 8\1/2\ years or 8 years, we can balance it fairly, and we can also provide drug treatment to 50 percent more drug addicts and we can also send 2.5 million more kids to college, I will go for that. And I think a lot of people here would go for that. I will tell you something. Most Americans would go for that. Americans want truth and common sense. They are tired of rigid intuition-ordained 7-year goals. They want this place to legislate on the basis of honesty and common sense. And my prayer is that in the next few hours we will get the Government of this country back to work and we will sit down like adults and come to an agreement about what the best interests of this Nation are. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I simply would like to ask my colleague, how he can persist in the myth that there is not a cut, when you unilaterally take a certain amount of money that is available for a fixed set of benefits and you cut that amount of money, even if it still is only a reduction in the rate of growth? How is it not a cut, if the growth in the population of people expecting those benefits continues at a rate that exceeds what is provided in your budget? How is that not a cut?