John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire also for working out language with us. This is precisely the same thing we have already voted on in the Senate by 99 to 1. We basically already approved this language. It is a variation in the language here today. But it is the same principle. And the principle is very simple; that if we are going to engage in a large-scale peacekeeping effort, the country is better off and the President [[Page S 14636]] is better off with approval from Congress. I think it is very important to note that the meeting that the Senator from South Carolina just talked about today was attended broadly by House and Senate Members, bipartisan leadership. The President made it very clear, saying that he thought President Bush did the right thing in coming to Congress to ask for approval. He thought the Congress did the right thing in giving it. But we should remember that President Bush sent 500,000 troops to the gulf prior to any approval from Congress. All he had was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution saying this was OK after the fact. The President appropriately has reserved the right with respect to constitutional power not to make a commitment. And we should not hold him to that. So I think it is entirely appropriate here today to say that a sense of the Senate should have unanimous approval. But if this were a law tying the hands of the President, I think many Members on the other side would also join us in disapproving it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. State, Justice, Commerce, and with respect to the State portion of that, if we can spend a minute on the Bosnia issue, we might be able to resolve that, hopefully, with Senator Nunn and other interested parties and come up with language quickly on which we can move forward.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think that the Senator from New Hampshire has made a very fair downscaling of a request. What I want to suggest, I ask the leader, is if we can take a few minutes to see if we can try to come to some agreement with respect to language that might be able to expedite the process, and then conceivably have a managers' amendment and a vote up or down. That might be able to expedite it. I wonder if it might be possible to take the time to do that.

Mr. KERRY. Will the majority leader yield?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I introduce a ``Budget Buster Bill'' that strips more than $90 billion from the budget and cuts 40 programs which I consider to be pointless, wasteful, antiquated, or just plain silly. Our priority is people not ``pork'' or special interests, and this proposal recognizes the need to cut while at the same time understanding the need to invest in those things that bring this Nation its greatest return. I know that the budget debate is philosophically driven, and that there are diametrically opposed positions on the legitimate role of government. But no matter where one falls on the political spectrum, it behooves us to point to specific savings that cross philosophical lines which can and should be made. We came to our senses last week, and in a display of commonsense bipartisanship, we overwhelmingly passed an amendment that cut the mink subsidy. There are other similar programs that we should cut, and this bill cuts them. It cuts $11 billion for the space station. It cuts $10 billion from defense spending. It saves $360 million by reducing the number of political appointees in the Federal Government; and it cuts 37 other programs. I know that this bill, in and of itself, won't balance the budget, but it is one Senator's commonsense effort to answer the question, ``if you really want to cut the budget, what would you cut and how would you do it?'' Mr. President, there is no magic in this bill, but there is a healthy dose of common sense that seems to be sorely lacking in the ideologically driven budget debate that is speaking to the activist extremes and ignoring the silent middle. Despite the fact that a huge portion of the public has said they don't like the way we do business; despite the fact that we talk about change but rarely accomplish it; despite the fact that we claim to want bipartisanship and avoid politics as usual, Congress and the President together are willfully moving down a road that is guaranteed to leave most Americans questioning the degree to which people here are in touch. I find that a profoundly disturbing direction, and I find it contrary to all of the things that people are asking us to try to do. People want us to behave like adults down here. They want an assurance that critical services are not going to be made the poker chips of political gamesmanship. The point is that there are some basic needs that this country faces and, to the best of my knowledge, most Americans think about having a job and raising their paychecks sufficiently that they have quality of life to be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor. And most people think that the real concerns they express about making sure their kids have the best education in the world, and that they can walk through a neighborhood that is safe to get to a school that is safe when they get there. People are concerned about the quality of the education that they're going to get in that school. And yet, the debate in this country has been dominated by the return of a contribution to a campaign from a Republican gay person; the symbolic issue of English as our national language--which it is and ought to be; a constitutional amendment to protect the flag. These truly are not the paramount concerns of Americans but more of the traditional symbols of politics that are beginning to make people question the entire political process. Americans want to know if we're going to do the job. And the job we were sent here to do is to produce a budget by the end of this month. Rather than truly working on that budget, we are engaged in a charade where we're going to pass a continuing resolution and a series of appropriation bills without a true legislative effort but with one party ordained to march in lock step to refuse any legislative proposals that might improve it. I believe that is an unacceptable way to do business and an avoidance of our responsibility. Frankly, it is time we put the interests of the Nation first, get off the partisan track, and put America back on track. Mr. President, this is a debate about economic fairness. It is about what we believe in and what we stand for as a nation. It's about the creation and preservation of jobs. It's a debate not about class warfare--rich against poor--but about the working class and how we can legislate in their interests for their future. It's a debate about commitment to family, about realistic tax policy, about access to education, and investments in our future. It's about addressing the three deficits we face that I have mentioned many times on this floor: the fiscal deficit, the investment deficit, and the spiritual deficit. I believe that this debate is fundamentally about how we can grow as an economy, a nation, and a people, and about what the proper role and size of the Federal Government should be. For my part, any consensus on the budget must recognize four principles: First that we will not compromise our commitment to education, to jobs, to working families, and to senior citizens struggling to make ends meet; that we will not dis-invest in our economic, social, and cultural infrastructure; that we will not dis- invest in necessary technologies and science; and that we will not cut taxes unless and until we say to working Americans that there will be an increase in the minimum wage. I believe the cuts I am proposing and the bipartisan, commonsense direction in which they take us is in our best interest.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Triad to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying up to 6 passengers in a charter business. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is not considered built in the United States unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1982, but since 1992 it has been owned and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. The owner of the vessel now wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out for cruises. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Triad I find that this waiver would not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Triad to engage in coastwise trade. These include the facts the vessel is more than 10 years old, the owner has invested significant funds in vessel maintenance and restoration in the United States and the vessel has a relatively small passenger-carrying capacity. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Sarah-Christen to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying up to 12 passengers in a charter business. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is not considered built in the United States unless all major components of its hull and superstructures are fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1971, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. The owner of the vessel simply wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out for cruises. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Sarah-Christen, I find that this wavier does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Sarah-Christen to engage in coastwise trade. These include the facts the vessel is more than 20 years old, the owner has invested significant funds in vessel maintenance and restoration in the United States, and the vessel has a relatively small passenger-carrying capacity. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Triad to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying up to 6 passengers in a charter business. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is not considered built in the United States unless all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1982, but since 1992 it has been owned and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. The owner of the vessel now wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out for cruises. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Triad I find that this waiver would not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Triad to engage in coastwise trade. These include the facts the vessel is more than 10 years old, the owner has invested significant funds in vessel maintenance and restoration in the United States and the vessel has a relatively small passenger-carrying capacity. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing a bill to allow the vessel Sarah-Christen to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a small passenger capacity, carrying up to 12 passengers in a charter business. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit foreign-made vessels from operating in coastwise trade. The waiver is necessary because, under the law, a vessel is not considered built in the United States unless all major components of its hull and superstructures are fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. This vessel was originally built in a foreign shipyard in 1971, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. The owner of the vessel simply wishes to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out for cruises. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Sarah-Christen, I find that this wavier does not compromise our national readiness in times of national emergency, which is the fundamental purpose of the Jones Act requirement. While I generally support the provisions of the Jones Act, I believe the specific facts in this case warrant a waiver to permit the Sarah-Christen to engage in coastwise trade. These include the facts the vessel is more than 20 years old, the owner has invested significant funds in vessel maintenance and restoration in the United States, and the vessel has a relatively small passenger-carrying capacity. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bill being introduced today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask if it would be permissible then to proceed [[Page S 14512]] simply to speak on some issues with respect to the crime bill instead of putting in a quorum call. I know, Mr. President, that discussions are going on now. We are negotiating, and Senator Biden is representing our side, with respect to the issue of cops, police. I would like to talk for a few minutes, if I may, Mr. President, about this issue of cops. It is one that I have been deeply involved in and concerned about for all the time I have been in the Senate. And in the last few years we finally have been able to elicit a response to try to meet one of the great needs of the country. There is not one of us who has not been touched at one time or another in one way or another and sometimes very personally. I remember listening to the Senator from North Dakota in his own personal tale of what happened to his wife right here over on Capitol Hill. There are dozens of other examples. We have had a Senator randomly shot in the past here in Washington. We have had countless citizens in this city right around us shot. It is a war zone. It is the murder capital of the country. And it ought to have set a better example for what response should have been from the U.S. Congress. Such a random act of violence occurred just a couple days ago in Massachusetts to a young prosecutor, Assistant Attorney General Paul McLaughlin, the son of a friend of mine, former Lieutenant Governor and U.S. attorney. But this young assistant attorney general, himself involved in working to fight the problem of gang warfare and gang criminal activity, was simply gunned down going to his car coming home in the evening after his normal 12-hour day in a prosecutor's office. A hooded young person walked up and blew him away. I talked this afternoon with his father. And there is no way to express the sorrow that he and his family feel and no way for us to express our sorrow on their behalf. But I can say, Mr. President, with clarity that what the State and local entities have been doing over the course of the past years and the Federal response to that is truly unconscionable because we have literally been disarming in the face of an increasing threat on an annual basis, a threat that is measurable. And all of us have come to understand, I hope finally, that nothing is more important in terms of really fighting crime than to put police officers on the streets of the country. Mr. President, I have quoted the statistics before, but somehow they do not always seem to break through. But 15 years ago in this country we had 3.5 police officers per violent crime. Today we have, depending on the statistics, a range of 3.5 to 4.6 violent crimes per police officer. You can go into any of the major criminal activity communities in this country and you will find they are operating with less police today with a greater threat than they were 10 or 15 years ago with a lesser threat. Ask anyone in those communities about the relationship between the community and police. By and large the police come in, they drive through in a cruiser, they are gone. People do not know them. It is a sign of transient authority, not the sign of a present authority that makes an impact on people's lives. The word ``cop'' came from the British concept of ``constable on patrol.'' And it meant on patrol on foot, walking within a community. We used to do that in America. That was the nature of policing originally. The police officer knew the community, the people knew the police officer. There was a relationship with the police officer. The police officer was a role model. So, indeed, criminal activity rarely took place right under the nose of a police officer on patrol. Now, in recent days, we have sent a message to people in this country that most crimes are very difficult to trace, very difficult to make arrests. In fact, one of the most startling statistics that I have come across is the fact that out of the 200,000 murders that occurred in this country in the last decade, fully 100,000 of them were murders that occurred by total strangers. Americans are being killed, not, as the FBI once told us, in these family disputes or lovers' quarrels, but they are being murdered randomly by people they have never seen and never met. And what is more frightening is fully two-fifths of those murders are committed by people who will never walk through the threshold of a police station or a courthouse. Fully two-fifths of the murderers in America will never even come to justice. And 100,000 of our citizens in the last decade were gunned down by utter strangers. So when people say, well, violent crime is going down in America because there were 200 murders in your city last year and this year there were only 190, how are you supposed to feel safer? What greater safety is there in knowing that instead of 200 murders, 190 of your citizens were blown away? Mr. President, 100,000 police officers is an inadequate response. I say to my colleagues today that 100,000 police officers is an inadequate response. And what is really bizarre in this new equation we are debating in Washington, the two greatest public crises in America today--education and public safety--are already today 100 percent and 95 percent controlled at the local level. So here we are with an implosion of capacity to resolve these problems at the local level, and we are busy saying we are going to send back to the local level more responsibility with less resources. If that does not underscore the need for more than the 100,000 police officers, I do not know what does. Here we are, for the first time in American history the Federal Government is paying for local police officers. Now, I hear some people around the country say, ``What a fakery. You are only going to provide 20,000 police officers because you are not paying for the whole thing.'' Since when was it the responsibility of the Federal Government to pay for the whole thing? Every time we have had a Federal grant program, it would be with a matching grant where we have required 75 percent, 90 percent, or some percentage. Sometime we continued the 90 percent-10 percent relationship for 10 years, 15 years. In this particular case, we have decided that this is a sufficient national crisis that we want to ask the local communities and the States to accept what is already their responsibility--to put police officers on the street. We did not say we want to put floodlights on the jail, we want to put computers in the station, we want new cruisers on the road. We want to put police officers on the streets of this country because that is what we need to begin to regain and take back control over our communities and our streets. Mr. President, in recent weeks and months, I have toured a lot of Massachusetts and gone into the communities that, because of our effort, have community policing. I can tell you about Northhampton, MA. I can tell you about Gardner, Saugus, Lynn, about a host of areas, such as Boston and Lowell, where they now have community policing, and where they have been able to put it into effect and literally reclaim the community. I was in a housing project where you now have community police officers on bicycles who ride around through the entire community, who walk around and play with the kids, who started basketball with the kids. The kids run up to them when they come into the area, instead of running away from them, which is what they used to do. These officers have helped literally to give that community hope. In Lowell, on Bridge Street in Somerville, as recently as a couple of years ago, druggies and prostitutes had taken over the street. Citizens were afraid to come out of their homes in the street because of the vermin that were in the street. I talked to storeowners who said that as a result of those druggies and prostitutes, their earnings have gone down and people would not come into the store anymore. Lo and behold, with a grant from the Federal Government, we opened a small storefront and police officers went in; they are there all the time. The druggies are gone, the prostitutes are gone, the community has been reclaimed, and it is coming back to life. Mr. President, in addition to that, the police officers have been able to intervene before crimes are committed. They have been able to get to know people, to know who the troublemaker is, who identify who belongs in the community, to be able to make determinations about who they need to watch more closely, who needs help. By virtue of their intercessions, they have literally directed people into various human service treatment facilities or [[Page S 14513]] functions where those people left to their own devices might well have pulled out a knife, a gun, or been one of the people in the statistics that the Senator from Delaware talked about earlier. So, Mr. President, it works. It is working in America. Countless people have said, ``You are not going to put more than 5,000 police on the street within a year. You are not going to put 15,000; you are never going to get to 20,000.'' Well, more than 25,000 new police officers, additional police officers, are already on the streets. It is because of the effort of this legislation. So, Mr. President, it is my profound hope that in the next hour, or moments ahead, we will succeed in working out an agreement with the Senator from Texas to be able to put back into this bill the original concept of the community policing. Block grants work in some cases. I am not against block grants. I have voted for them. But in this particular case, we have tried to target a particular national emergency and need, and we have tried to do it in a way that is administratively inexpensive. In fact, it is less expensive to implement the direct justice grant program of the crime bill with a cost of about 0.8 of a percent administratively than to administer the 2.5- to 3-percent administrative costs that will go with a block grant. Moreover, under the block grant, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that police officers will get to the street rather than the floodlights to the jails or the new cruisers to the station, or the new computer. And that is not to say those things are not important. It is not to say that people do not have a right to ask for those things and that they do not need them. But when 95 percent of the crime is a local jurisdiction, and the Federal Government is singling out a particular need and the particular emergency, we have a right to expect that that emergency is going to be met. And if one community does not need those police, Mr. President, I guarantee you there are 10 other communities in America that will gladly use the money to put police on the streets and make their citizens safer. So, again, it is my hope that we will succeed in doing what we have already done, what we voted for in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion. I hope that will not be undone in this legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join my colleagues in saying a few words in support of this amendment. I particularly thank the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, for negotiating on our behalf on this side of the aisle, his conversations that he has had with all of us, the dialog that he engaged in an effort to try to achieve a sensible strategy to save some of the programs in a bill that to many of us is still flawed. The Senator from Utah just talked about rape and the problem of violence with respect to rape in particular, but the truth is that family violence, as we have all learned, is the No. 1 cause of all kinds of physical injury to women in this country. And when you translate the effect of family violence into the impact on several million young children, that impact plays out in a way that diminishes the capacity of those children to be able to learn, to be able to go to school, to be able to carry on normal relationships, and that flows into their adolescence and subsequent adulthood in ways that simply diminish the capacity of people to be able to participate as good citizens. We all deplore the implosion within a large segment of America's population with respect to a fundamental structure--the family. Finally, with the Violence Against Women Act, we gave people hope that a particular kind of behavior was going to be properly singled out and treated. To have even thought of doing away with it was astonishing to me. We do not need to talk further about that because we are restoring it. I am glad that the Senate has come to its senses with respect to it. I might mention that the Violence Against Women Act not only speaks to the problem of the physical abuse against a woman. We just had a very long debate about welfare and the family cap. And my good friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, spoke extraordinarily eloquently in the Chamber about the problem of punishing innocent children and creating further [[Page S 14509]] problems in the cycle but also about the problem of increased incentive to have abortions as a consequence of illegitimate pregnancies. Mr. President, when you consider violence against women, the truth is--and it has been ignored by prosecutors across America and by State governments across America--a large percentage of those unwanted pregnancies in America are the pregnancies of 13- and 14- and 15- and 16-year-olds by virtue of the actions of 24- and 25- and 26-year-olds. The last time most of us looked, that constituted statutory rape in this country. A Congressman has just been tried on the basis of actions of an adult with a teenager, and the truth is that here in America a large percentage of preying on the young is taking place. The unwanted pregnancies that we see in this country are in fact criminal actions. So this act in effect allows us to also focus on that totally ignored aspect of illegitimacy. And the truth is, if there was a stronger capacity within the welfare system to identity those people, we might begin to hold people accountable for their actions, but not do it in a way that creates a huge problem for the totally innocent child born as a consequence of those actions. So, Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from Delaware. I think this is a very important outcome. And I thank the Senator from Texas for acknowledging that this act that only recently went into effect is working, it is having a profound impact and it is healthy for this country to allow it to continue to work.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as we consider the VA-HUD Appropriations bill, we will set the budget for the Environmental Protection Agency, and this budget for EPA turns back the clock on 25 years of bipartisan progress and tips the balance from the protection of people to the protection of the special interests of some industries. The Gingrich majority and the extremists on the right have placed in jeopardy the gains we have fought for, and the progress we have made to protect the environment and ensure the health and safety of every American in the last 25 years. Ironically, for 19 of the last 25 years Republicans were in charge of the EPA. It was Richard Nixon who signed into law the National Environmental Policy Act and declared protection of the environment to be a national priority. And today the Republican majority is turning its back on its own promise. Twenty-five years ago environmental organizations let their voices be heard and the message was loud and clear. We must find that voice again. We must unite in our efforts and let the message resound across this Nation and through the halls of Congress--that we will not turn back the clock on environmental protection. We will not retreat. We will not give in. We will fight for clean air, clean water, and the preservation of our land and oceans and rivers so that the world we leave our children will be the same magnificent world that was handed down to us. [[Page S 14378]] I call on every one who believes in the importance of environmental protection and who has been part of this fight to stand together and renew the effort we began. We cannot assume we can change the agenda in Congress. We cannot take anything for granted. We must rebuild, retool, reorganize, and reeducate. We must put aside whatever differences exist between groups or regions and stand up for what we know is right for the Nation and for the environmental gains we have made. We have to start anew--as people committed to the environment--we must begin again as if this were April 22, 1970, the first Earth Day. We must take advantage of America's attention on the 25th anniversary of that day to galvanize support across the country for what Americans believe and want for the environment: clean air, clean water, pristine rivers, and protected ecosystems, abundant species of plants and animals, clean beaches, parks and public lands that are clean and safe, cities with breathable air, industries and businesses that are willing to do all they can to protect the environment, and a government that cares. These should be the 10 commandments for the new environmental movement, and our call to action is clear: Remember April 22, 1970. And, Mr. President, we must do so in a rational bi-partisan manner. But this bill--this bill--Mr. President, speaks volumes about the new Republican Party and its retreat from responsible policies designed to protect the health and safety of all Americans--of all incomes, all races, and particularly those who are the most vulnerable in society today. The central question in this debate is: What priority do we place on protecting our Nation's vital natural resources and the health of its citizens? Regrettably, I must say that the Appropriations Committee does not put as high a priority on the environment as the American people do. This bill cuts the EPA budget by $1.7 billion--23 percent below the level originally appropriated to the EPA for the current fiscal year. In addition, it includes 11 legislative riders that eliminate critical environmental protections provided in such statutes as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Air Act. Mr. President, I am cosponsoring several amendments today to restore some of the more egregious cuts and provisions in this bill to bring it more in line with what I believe to be the priorities of most Americans. In addition to the EPA, the VA-HUD and Independent Agencies appropriations bill before us today includes funding for the Veterans Administration, for Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, and the National Aeronautic and Space Administration--all important Federal programs. But of all the agencies, the agency that has the most direct impact on American lives is the EPA. I find it ironic that it is the EPA budget that takes the largest reduction of any agency's budget in this bill--23 percent cut from funding levels originally appropriated for the current fiscal year. Americans have, indeed, called for meaningful budget reductions and reforms and the President and Congress have serious plans to meet those reduction goals; and all departments and agencies must join in this effort if we are to succeed. But the best approach, by far, is first to eliminate wasteful spending, and then spread the reductions across agencies. Unfortunately, this is not the approach of the appropriators. The committee this year, while cutting the EPA budget by 23 percent is reducing its other agencies by far less. The fiscal year 1996 Senate appropriations bill for EPA would deal a harsh blow to efforts to protect public health and the environment for Massachusetts and the Nation. While the President has proposed a balanced budget that would preserve the environment and protect the health and safety of American families, the bill before us cuts those protections dramatically, while placing severe limits on existing protections. Let me take a moment to highlight the key cuts that would have an enormous negative impact on millions of citizens. First, this bill cuts desperately needed assistance to State and local governments for important water infrastructure programs through the State revolving loan fund [SRF]. This bill cuts almost $600 million to provide assistance to local communities to offset the enormous costs of sewage treatment facilities in order to provide cleaner local water--cleaner water in nearby rivers and adjoining shorelines. Of that, the $20 million which would be targeted to Massachusetts alone would assist over 300 communities across my State. Hundreds of thousands of citizens in my State--as in dozens of States across this Nation--rely on clean water for their livelihood. From tourism to fisheries, industries depend on the quality of water--and history shows that industry did not care about the quality of water when it had the chance--when there was no EPA. I wonder what has changed today. My State is but one of many that had beaches closed to protect the public from unsafe waters in 1994. These closings cost millions of dollars but can be avoided with prudent, preventive clean water standards and a reliable water infrastructure system. Local communities cannot shoulder this burden alone. That is why Congress created a Federal-State-local government partnership to finance this process. That is why, earlier this year, we passed and the President signed into law, the Unfunded Mandates Act requiring that future legislative initiatives provide Federal financial assistance to State and local governments for implementing such large-scale undertakings. I find it ironic that this same congressional leadership would now support cutting hundreds of millions of assistance to local and State governments when it is so urgently needed. A second area of concern are funding cuts for the cleanup of the toxic waste sites. The Hazardous Waste Cleanup Program funding is targeted for a 36-percent reduction--$500 million. A reduction on this scale would slow cleanups and would stall cleanup efforts in communities that have patiently waited for Federal intervention. In Massachusetts alone, there are four new communities slated to begin cleanup efforts in 1996--New Bedford, Dartmouth, Palmer, and Tyngsborough. All of these communities would be adversely impacted by these unprecedented cutbacks. And what do we tell the people who live there: ``Don't worry. The problem will take care of itself once we get Government off our backs?'' Mr. President, the problem is that companies did not take care of these situations before there was an EPA--or before a young man named Jimmy Anderson got sick from a contaminated well in Woburn, MA. He died from lymphocytic leukemia in 1981. Let me digress for a moment because Jimmy Anderson's story makes the point better than any rhetoric I could come up with today. Almost 30 years ago, Jimmy's mother Anne suspected something was wrong with their water because it smelled bad, only to be assured that the water was safe. Then, in early 1972, Jimmy got sick. Despite Mrs. Anderson's concerns and protests, the wells remained in use until 1979 when a State environmental inspection triggered by an unrelated incident detected unusually high levels of toxins. Eventually, other leukemia victims came forward and it turned out that between 1966 and 1986 there were 28 cases of leukemia among Woburn children with victims concentrated in a section of Woburn served by two wells. Investigations revealed that there were lagoons of arsenic, chromium, and lead discovered on a tract of land that once housed a number of chemical plants, or from a nearby abandoned tannery that had left behind a huge mound of decades old rotting horsehides that gave off a smell that commuters used to call the Woburn odor. I say to my colleagues, before we rush headlong into getting Government out of the business of protecting people like Jimmy Anderson I think we should reflect for a moment on the consequences of turning back the clock to [[Page S 14379]] a time when there were no real regulations and industry did, indeed, have Government off of its back. Let me read what Anne Anderson said to a congressional committee. She said, It is difficult for me to come before you today, but I do so with the realization that industry has the strength, influence, and resources that we, the victims, do not. I am here as a reminder of the tragic consequences of controlled toxic waste, and the necessity of those who are responsible for it to assume that responsibility. Mr. President, this is why we have made the choices we did for the last 25 years. And they were the right choices. I would submit to my colleagues that this bill throws responsibility to the wind, and begins a tragic return to the days when toxic lagoons contaminated the water in Woburn and killed Jimmy Anderson. Now, getting back to the third point, Mr. President, the massive budget cuts proposed for EPA's enforcement and compliance programs seem extremely shortsighted. The Senate appropriators target the EPA enforcement program for a 20-percent cutback. This is the office that goes after the bad actors in the environmental arena; they are the ones that most directly protect the public's health and safety. Cutting back enforcement will only encourage polluters to continue breaking the law. In Massachusetts during 1994, EPA and State inspectors visited 1,091 facilities to ensure public health and safety standards. Of those visits, 117 State and Federal enforcement actions were taken to protect the public. By weakening enforcement, more polluters are given an unfair economic advantage over responsible industry competitors play by the rules because polluters have lower production costs. Less enforcement means more risk taking by polluters because they are less likely to get caught. Let me tell you a tale of two companies. One bought scrubbers; the other bought lobbyists and lawyers. In the early 1990's, Federal regulators discovered that a number of forest products companies had underestimated certain emissions at plywood and waferboard plants by a factor of 10--and had therefore failed to apply for permits under the Clean Air Act or install necessary but expensive pollution controls. When EPA moved to require permits and installation of such equipment, Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific chose very different responses. The one that played by the rules finds itself at a serious competitive disadvantage--if its rival can get away with it. Weyerhaueser more or less played by the rules, moving quickly to install tens of millions of dollars in pollution controls at its plants--according to company officials--even before EPA began its enforcement action. The company paid a substantial fine to State regulators, though it is currently contesting any EPA decision to seek fines. Georgia-Pacific, on the other hand, chose to fight EPA, claiming it had only followed the agency's own faulty document--though a 1983 industry-produced technical bulletin corrected and publicized the error--and that State regulators had in any event approved its plants. The company spent its money instead on Washington lawyers and lobbyists, who managed to slip a special provision into the original Dole regulatory reform bill effectively freeing Georgia-Pacific from any obligation to install the expensive equipment. According to Weyerhaeuser, the pollution controls add $1 million a year to operating costs at each plant. If Georgia-Pacific can get away with its plan to avoid installing any controls whatsoever, Weyerhaeuser plants will then be at a serious disadvantage during the next downturn in the highly cyclical building products industry. By playing by the rules, Weyerhaeuser will have lost. Weyerhaeuser's director of environmental affairs says Georgia Pacific's tactic: ``sends exactly the wrong signal. We're finding ourselves in the position of being penalized for coming into compliance. We think that's unfair.'' Finally, Mr. President, in addition to the unjustified draconian budget cuts, there are nearly a dozen legislative riders that have no business being added to an appropriations bill. These legislative proposals should be considered by the authorizing committees with jurisdiction. This bill guts EPA and virtually lets the free marketeers decide what is right, and puts its faith in the perceived altruism of American capitalists who somehow and for some reason, now, in 1995, have seen the light and will do better in the future than they did in the past. It puts its faith in industry's willingness to care more about the common man than the bottom line. It says that if Government would only leave everyone alone, everyone will do the right thing. If we stop watching where folks dump their toxic waste, what they spew into the air, and what chemicals they use, everyone will act in the common interest. I am not sure that is the case. But I am sure that EPA balances the equation between those who care and those who don not. Why now, are we willing to tip that balance--to favor the polluters over the people. My Republican friends will deny that this bill tips the balance or turns back the clock. They will stand here and tell us that Government has been intrusive and it has--that Government has overregulated and it has--that Government is demanding too much of small business and it is. They will give us example after example of ludicrous regulations and I agree that those regulations should be abolished, but not at the expense of the progress we have made. But they will not tell us is why we needed an EPA. They conveniently forget about Jimmy Anderson. This chorus to cut Government--with its refrain of getting Government off our backs--is becoming a dirge for the common man. And we are marching into the next century to a slow and painful funeral march for the death of common sense. I yield the floor. reno va hospital

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to acknowledge the hard work of the distinguished chairman and ranking member of the VA-HUD Appropriations Subcommittee in assembling this complex appropriations bill. The diverse range of agencies funded by this bill--the Veterans Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautic and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, and numerous other independent agencies--makes the VA-HUD bill one of the most difficult appropriations bills to balance. It is clear that the resource constraints placed on the Appropriations Committee by the budget resolution this year made it impossible to fund adequately all of the programs and activities in the bill that are important to me, important to the people of Massachusetts, and important to the people of this country. Nonetheless, with respect to the way in which the bill addresses housing and related programs, I thank the chairman and ranking member are to be commended for good faith [[Page S 14388]] efforts to minimize the pain from the reductions. There are several items in the bill that are quite positive, and I thank the chairman and the ranking member for including these. I am particularly pleased that the bill includes an appropriation for the Youthbuild Program. Youthbuild is working to provide kids who live in tough places with some confidence and some hope along with a solid package of job skills while contributing to their communities the products of their work in the form of rehabilitated homes and other structures. Youthbuild deserves our continued support. I am also a strong supporter of the provisions in this bill that fund the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Programs at the 1995 appropriated levels. CDBG has a solid 20-year track record of providing flexible community development assistance to State and local governments. HOME also provides flexible resources to State and local governments for the purpose of fostering partnerships in support of affordable housing. HOME is designed to leverage the additional public and private resources and is achieving excellent results in targeting these housing resources to low-income families. Both CDBG and HOME are critical to the successes of the community-based nonprofit movement. Another important element of the bill before the Senate is the $624 million it contains for the Low-Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act, or LIHPRHA. I congratulate the chairman for his commitment to the preservation program's mission. We cannot afford a hiatus in preservation funding, because we would then risk losing affordable housing resources and displacing people from their homes. We all recognize that LIHPRHA has some structural problems that need correcting, and the bill has made an important contribution in pushing forward preservation program reforms. It is unfortunate that the LIHPRHA capital grant reforms in this bill are delayed a year for technical reasons related to budget scoring. However, since they are, it is important that we continue to process and preserve the projects under the old program using available resources and not stand idly than waiting for the new program to be perfected, enacted, and implemented. Finally, I would like to express relief that the bill does not repeal the Brooke amendment as some have proposed. The Brooke amendment limits the rent paid by a poor family to 30 percent of income. The bill does make some changes in the public housing rent-setting process that we will have to monitor closely. I support the provision in this bill providing public housing authorities with the flexibility to set ceiling rents and adopt policies that deduct earned income in calculating the adjusted income against which the 30 percent standard is applied. These changes should help enable working families to remain in public housing developments and improve the income mix of the public housing communities. I am less enthusiastic about a provision in the bill that requires all residents to pay a minimum rent of $25 per month, particularly in the context of other cutbacks in programs of assistance to poor families. There are, however, Madam President, too many instances where I believe the bill takes the wrong course. First, and foremost, the bill makes major reductions in HUD's total resources. The bill cuts funding for public housing operating subsidies, public housing modernization, homeless assistance, and the section 8 tenant-based assistance. These HUD programs serve the housing needs of the poorest of the poor. Over time, underfunding public housing will erode its quality as public housing authorities cut back on maintenance due to a lack of resources. A provision delaying the reissuance of vouchers that come available will mean that homeless families which have risen to the top of local waiting lists will have to wait 6 months to receive housing assistance. The bill also reduces public housing authority fees for the administration of the section 8 program in a way that does not take into account the different cost structures for administering the program nor does it seem to have considered the distinct possibility that at least some public housing authorities will simply choose not to continue to administer the program after these cuts take effect. These cuts are an excellent reflection the tyranny of the budget that binds the Congress. Madam President, I would like to also register my concern about the extent of authorizing provisions in this bill. Some of these provisions have not gone through the hearing process nor have members had the opportunity to consult concerning them with all of the affected parties and other experts on program operations. I am particularly concerned that the numerous discrete, piecemeal provisions--while often helpful-- will undermine or contradict efforts to engage in a more comprehensive examination of the HUD statutes. As a member of the authorizing committee, I am hopeful that we will review all of these provisions in more detail. There are three particularly egregious authorizing provisions in this bill that highlight the need for a more orderly process of hearings and deliberation. These are the provisions transferring HUD's Office of Fair Housing to the Department of Justice, the transfer of the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight to Treasury, and a prohibition against enforcing the fair housing laws against property insurers who discriminate. I oppose the inclusion of all three provisions in this bill. I realize that HUD is taking a disproportionate share of the budget cuts because some of its programs have been troubled and do not enjoy a positive public image. The cuts, then, underscore the need for the Congress to work harder to improve HUD's management systems, and to reduce the workload placed on HUD's staff by consolidating programs and devolving some HUD responsibilities to other capable partners. We also need to be willing to take a more aggressive approach toward the poorly managed inventory and that portion of the HUD-assisted inventory that has aged to the point of obsolescence. So, notwithstanding my broader concerns with authorizing on an appropriations bill and authorizing out of context, I note that several provisions in this bill are helpful. For example, the bill allows HUD to consolidate seven categorical homeless programs into a formula grant program. This reform will reduce HUD's workload and allow the Department to redeploy the staff who currently spend many hours reviewing thousands of applications. The bill also includes several provisions that may prove helpful in allowing public housing agencies to adapt to the cuts in the bill. In particular, the bill provides new, expanded, eligible activities for the public housing modernization program that deserve more hearing, but are defensible in the face of large cuts in resources. Revisiting our admission policies pertaining to public and assisted housing also is necessary not only from the perspective of shrinking resources, but from the need to reverse the overconcentration of the poor. I am very concerned that this bill pushes forward too far and too fast on the Department's proposal to enact legislation with respect to mark-to-market of the assisted housing inventory. We need not rush into a complicated proposal that likely will result in forcing many properties into default. The administration has proposed to voucher out the public and assisted inventory. This approach may make sense in those instances where the housing has been poorly managed and low- income people have been forced to live in squalor. However, I have serious concerns about vouchers as a substitute for well-managed, well- located housing. I have concerns that vouchers do not work for everyone in every market. Vouchers are not accepted by many landlords. The available suggests that if we move to vouchers, many housing assistance recipients will be displaced from a place that they currently call home. Fundamentally, this appropriations bill does not and could not come close to meeting the housing needs of this country. More than 5 million very low income Americans face severe housing needs. They suffer from homelessness, they pay rents that take more than 50 percent of their household income, or they live in severely substandard conditions. We have not been willing to provide the resources necessary to meet these needs. Over the last 15 [[Page S 14389]] years of troubled housing policy, though, both Republican and Democratic administrations have been committed to making progress toward meeting these needs, albeit with different levels of energy and commitment. The resource levels in this bill are simply not adequate to the task of preserving the affordable housing gains from the past, reforming HUD's programs, compensating for previous underfunding of capital needs, and making progress against our Nation's large outstanding needs for affordable housing. The effects of the budget on this bill and thence in these vital Government services are extremely troubling. Our Nation will pay and pay dearly--both now and even more in the future--for shortchanging these pressing needs. Some of us--the most unfortunate--will pay more dearly than others, but their plight will affect us all. Knowing this, we need to make the greatest possible effort to find more resources that can be devoted to meeting the objectives I have described. I hope to be joined in good faith by colleagues on both sides of the aisle seeking that goal. Ms. MIKULSKI addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate recently adopted two amendments to the foreign operations appropriations bill which I think deserve further comment. The first of these, an amendment offered by Senator Dole, will prohibit U.S. assistance from going to any country that impedes the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance. I am a cosponsor of this amendment, as well as of the original legislation on the subject, the Humanitarian Aid Corridors Act, and I believe strongly in the principle which it reflects. Countries that block our humanitarian efforts should not be receiving our foreign aid. I wish that such legislation were not necessary, but unfortunately the third largest recipient of United States foreign aid, Turkey, continues to prevent the delivery of most humanitarian assistance to neighboring Armenia. We can no longer ignore this situation. After enduring mass slaughter at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, and more than 60 years under the repressive rule of the Soviet Union, Armenia has been embroiled since achieving independence 4 years ago in a bloody dispute with Azerbaijan to its east and has been subjected to an economic blockade by Turkey on the west. The United States and the rest of the Western community have provided humanitarian aid to help reduce the severe shortages of fuel, food, and other essential supplies. Unfortunately, Turkey has maintained a blockade on the most efficient land routes, thereby greatly complicating this relief effort. I had hoped that diplomacy alone could ensure the delivery of the much-needed assistance to Armenia. However, the lack of progress on the diplomatic front and my commitment to ensuring the unrestricted delivery of humanitarian assistance to Armenia--and my commitment to the important principle of permitting unrestricted humanitarian assistance to the civilian casualties of any nation--have convinced me that Senator Dole's legislation is necessary. I believe it is the most effective avenue to bring pressure to bear on those hindering the delivery of humanitarian assistance to Armenia. The second amendment I wish to discuss also affected Turkey and, had it been adopted, would have capped United States economic assistance to Turkey at $21 million. I also cosponsored this amendment, offered by Senator D'Amato as a way of expressing to our Turkish allies our extreme disappointment with their continued intransigence in Cyprus, their deplorable human rights record in dealing with the Kurdish insurgency in southeastern Turkey, and their continuing land blockade of Armenia. I am well aware of the important strategic role that Turkey played during the cold war and of its role in the international coalition during the Persian Gulf war. I appreciate the significant contributions Turkey has made to reasonable action and discourse in the Moslem world. I would like for Turkey and the United States to be close cooperating friendly allies. I do not relish the idea of taking punitive measures against a valued NATO ally, but we must look at the relationship across a spectrum of issues and in many areas Turkey comes up short. The Turkish occupation in Cyprus just entered its third decade and there seems to be little movement toward a settlement. The United States State Department reported that, despite constant urgings from the Western community, human rights abuses in Turkey worsened last year. This behavior is incompatible with Turkey's drive for inclusion in the European Union. Because all other means of delivering the message and securing altered behavior have failed, I agree that we are reduced to using the few remaining vehicles available to deliver our message, a reduction of our assistance. Like many of my colleagues, I want Turkey to continue as a trusted ally, but we cannot let our desire for good relations blind us to Turkey's flaws. I am pleased that Senator Dole's amendment was adopted and I hope that the Turkish leadership receives the message sent by both amendments--our relationship since the cold war has changed and Turkey's strategic location is no longer enough to shield them from the bright light of international scrutiny. I also hope that Turkey's response will not be intransigence and obstinacy, but instead will be recognition that this message comes from a nation and a people that values our friendship and wants our future relations to be friendly and cooperative and will ensure they are friendly and cooperative if Turkey will comport itself in accord with established standards of behavior for sovereign states.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to remember Kenneth B. Schwartz of Brookline, MA. I first worked with Ken when I was Lieutenant Governor and he was general counsel to the executive office of human services. He had a brilliant analytical mind, a keen sense of humor, and most important, he was one of the purely nicest human beings ever to walk the face of the Earth. He cared deeply about the most vulnerable among us, the elderly, the poor, the mentally ill. Tragically, he was diagnosed last November with cancer. Despite having the best medical care available, Ken died September 10, at age 40, leaving his wife, Ellen Cohen, and his 2-year-old son, Benjamin. Despite pain, surgeries, the devastating effects of chemotherapy, and the mental anguish that knowledge of his condition brought, Ken turned his experience into something quite remarkable and enormously valuable for both those afflicted with cancer and those who treat them. The son and brother of doctors, Ken wrote an article for the Boston Globe magazine on his experience as a patient, and his relationship with the caregivers at the teaching hospital where he was treated. Ken's article opened the eyes of the medical community in a way that rarely occurs even in the most sympathetic and responsive of hospitals. His article came to the attention of the ``Good Morning America'' show, which featured him in one of its segments. During this all-too-brief period of time, he also helped establish the Kenneth B. Schwartz Center for the Study of Caregiver-Patient Relationships at Massachusetts General Hospital, so that the lessons he learned from his illness might be studied and broadened to the benefit of future patients, their doctors and other caregivers. As was said of Sir Thomas More, Ken was: A man of angel's wit and singular learning; I know not his fellow. For where is the man of that gentleness, lowliness and affability? And as time requireth, a man of marvelous mirth and pastimes; and sometimes of as sad a gravity; a man for all seasons. I ask that his Boston Globe article be placed in the Congressional Record at this point, and I commend it to all my colleagues in the Congress. The article follows: [From The Boston Globe Magazine, Jul. 16, 1995] A Patient's Story (By Kenneth B. Schwartz) Until last fall, I had spent a considerable part of my career as a health-care lawyer, first in state government and then in the private sector. I came to know a lot about health-care policy and management, government regulations and contracts. But I knew little about the delivery of care. All that changed on November 7, 1994, when at age 40 I was diagnosed with advanced lung cancer. [[Page S 14207]] In the months that followed, I was subjected to chemotherapy, radiation, surgery, and news of all kinds, most of it bad. It has been a harrowing experience for me and for my family. And yet, the ordeal has been punctuated by moments of exquisite compassion. I have been the recipient of an extraordinary array of human and humane responses to my plight. These acts of kindness--the simple human touch from my caregivers--have made the unbearable bearable. During September and October of 1994, I made several visits to the outpatient clinic of a Boston teaching hospital for treatment of a persistent cough, low-grade fever, malaise, and weakness. The nurse practitioner diagnosed me as having atypical pneumonia and prescribed an antibiotic. Despite continued abnormal blood counts, she assured me that I had a post-viral infection and didn't need an appointment with my physician until mid-November, if then. By mid-October, I felt so bad that I decided I could not wait until November 11 to be seen. Disappointed with the inaccessibility of my physician, I decided to seek care elsewhere, with the hope that a new doctor might be more responsive. My brother, a physician who had trained at Massachusetts General Hospital, arranged for an immediate appointment with Dr. Jose Vega, an experienced internist affiliated with MGH. Dr. Vega spent an hour with me and ordered tests, including a chest X-ray. He called within hours to say he was concerned by the results, which showed a ``mass'' in my right lung, and he ordered a computerized-topography scan for more detail. I remember leaving my office for home, saying quickly to my secretary, Sharyn Wallace, ``I think I may have a serious medical problem.'' Indeed, the CT scan confirmed abnormal developments in my right lung and chest nodes. The next day, Dr. Vega, assuring me that he would continue to be available to me whenever I needed him, referred me to Dr. Thomas Lynch, 34-year-old MGH oncologist specializing in lung cancer. Dr. Lynch, who seems driven by the ferocity of the disease he sees every day, told me that I had lung cancer, lymphoma, or some rare lung infection, although it was most likely lung cancer. My family and I were terrified. For the next several months, my blood pressure, which used to be a normal 124 over 78, went to 150 over 100, and my heart rate, which used to be a low 48, ran around 100. Within 72 hours of seeing Dr. Lynch, I was scheduled for a bronchoscopy and a mediastinoscopy, exploratory surgical procedures to confirm whether I indeed had lung cancer. Until this point, I had thought that I was at low risk for cancer: I was relatively young, I did not smoke (although I had smoked about a cigarette a day in college and in law school and for several years after that), I worked out every day, and I avoided fatty foods. The day before surgery, I was scheduled to have a series of tests. The presurgery area of the hospital was mobbed, and the nurses seemed harried. Eventually, a nurse who was to conduct a presurgical interview called my name. Already apprehensive, I was breathing hard. The nurse was cool and brusque, as if I were just another faceless patient. But once the interview began, and I told her that I had just learned that I probably had advanced lung cancer, she softened, took my hand, and asked how I was doing. We talked about my 2-year-old son, Ben, and she mentioned that her nephew was named Ben. By the end of our conversation, she was wiping tears from her eyes and saying that while she normally was not on the surgical floor, she would come see me before the surgery. Sure enough, the following day, while I was waiting to be wheeled into surgery, she came by, held my hand, and, with moist eyes, wished me luck. This small gesture was powerful; my apprehension gave way to a much-needed moment of calm. Looking back, I realize that in a high-volume setting, the high-pressure atmosphere tends to stifle a caregiver's inherent compassion and humanity. But the briefest pause in the frentic pace can bring out the best in a caregiver and do much for a terrified patient. The nurse left, and my apprehension mounted. An hour later, I was wheeled to surgery for a biopsy of the chest nodes and the mass in my lung. I was greeted by a resident in anesthesiology, Dr. Debra Reich, who took my pulse and blood pressure and said gently: ``You're pretty nervous, huh?'' She medicated me with tranquilizers, but that did not stop me from asking about where she lived, where she had trained, and whether she was married. I jokingly asked her how come she was the only Jewish doctor I had met during my time at MGH. When it turned out that she lived down the street from me and liked the sandwiches at the same corner shop, Virginia's, I felt comforted. She squeezed my shoulder, wished me luck, and wheeled my into surgery. When I awoke, I was told that I had adenocarcinoma in my right lung and in several chest nodes--in other words, advanced lung cancer. I don't remember a lot about those hours, but I remember Dr. Vega's face, with tears in his eyes. I also remember feeling very sad and scared. A few days later, I received a letter from Dr. Reich: ``Remember me, your friendly anesthesiologist? I came by to see you this afternoon as my professional duty but also to express my sadness in hearing about your diagnosis. Your door was closed and there seemed to be a lot of activity, so I decided not to disturb you. ``As I'm sure you know, we as physicians are taught not to become emotionally involved in our patients because then we would be continually devastated. But I guess because we had such a nice interaction before your surgery and because your life was one which I could relate to so well--being Jewish, professional, renovating a house, sandwiches, at Virginia's, etc.--your situation really struck a chord in me. (Hey, maybe you can't even remember any of this because of the medicine I gave you, but hopefully you do . . .) ``I was very impressed that during the fear and anxiety you were experiencing, you still maintained your composure, your sense of humor, and even thought to ask me when I was getting married. ``So, anyway, as you told me, keeping your wife and son in mind will make you fight strong, and I know this to be true! I know that you have a very loving and supportive family who will help you through this as well. ``Best, wishes, and maybe I'll run into you sometime at Virginia's.'' I had not forgotten Dr. Reich, nor will I ever forget her willingness to cross the professional barrier, hold my hand, and write those words. It was clear that I would soon begin a new chapter in my illness and undergo the classic treatment for such advanced cancer, intensive chemotherapy and radiation, followed by surgery to remove the tumors, nodes, and entire lung, if necessary. Dr. Lynch told me that this option presented the real possibility of a cure. Over the next week, I had a series of additional radiologic scans to determine if the cancer had spread beyond my chest. These scans are incredibly scary: You are placed in a tube resembling a sarcophagus, with only 6 inches between you and the walls, and you may spend several hours inside, deafened by the clanging machine. And the scans always raise fears about whether more bad news in around the corner. Dr. Vega or Dr. Lynch always made it a point, though, to relay results within 24 hours so my family and I didn't have to endure the anxiety of uncertainty any longer than necessary. The scans of my body, head, liver, bones, and back were clear. I was relieved. The doctors soon began an intensive regimen of chemotherapy and radiation, with the goal of destroying the cancer and preparing for surgery to remove my lung. Before being admitted for my first five-day course of chemotherapy. I had a radiation-simulation session. During such session, therapists meticulously map their targets by marking your skin where the radiation should be directed. I was asked to lie on a table in a large, cold chamber. The radiation therapist. Julie Sullivan, offered me a blanket and, mentioning that the staff had a tape deck asked if I had any request; I recalled my college days and asked for James Taylor. Listening to ``Sweet Baby James'' and ``Fire and Rain'' I though back to a time when the most serious problem I faced was being jilted by a girlfriend, and tears ran down my cheeks. As therapists came and went, Julie Sullivan held my hand and asked me if I was OK. I thanked her for her gentleness. After having a Port-o-Cath implanted in my chest--a device that allows chemotherapy to be administered without constant needle sticks in the arm--I was admitted to MGH in mid- November. During that and other hospitalizations, either my mother or sister would stay overnight, often sleeping in cramped chairs. When I awoke at night in an anxious sweat or nauseated, I would see one of them and feel reassured. While doctors managed my medical cure, my day-to-day quality of life and comfort were in the hands of two or three nurses. These nurses showed competence and pride in their work, but they also took a personal interest in me. It gave me an enormous boost, and while I do not believe that hope and comfort alone can overcome cancer, it certainly made a huge difference to me during my time in the hospital. During the period between my two chemotherapies, when I also received high-dose radiation twice a day, I came to know a most exceptional caregiver, the outpatient oncology nurse Mimi Batholomay. An eight-year veteran who had experienced cancer in her own family, she was smart, upbeat, and compassionate I had to receive fluids intravenously every day at the clinic, and while there we talked regularly about life, cancer, marriage, and children. She, too, was willing to cross that professional Rubicon--to reach out and talk about my fear of dying or, even worse, my fear of not living out my life, of not biking through the hills of Concord and Weston on summer weekends with my brother, of not seeing my child grown up, of not holding my wife in my arms. And she took the risk of talking about her own father's recent bout with cancer. I cannot emphasize enough how meaningful it was to me when caregivers revealed something about themselves that made a personal connection to my plight. It made me feel much less lonely. The rule books, I'm sure, frown on such intimate engagement between caregiver and patient. But maybe it's time to rewrite them. After my second round of chemotherapy, I was ready for the final stage of what we hoped would be a cure: surgery. Before this could happen, Dr. Lynch repeated my radiologic scans, to be sure that the cancer [[Page S 14208]] had not spread. He assured me that the chance of any such metastasis was remote--less than 5 percent--although it would be a disaster if it occurred. The scans were endless, scary; and lonely. While members of my family stayed with me in the waiting rooms, they could not accompany me to the scanning rooms; the experience again was harrowing. But I felt my greatest fear while awaiting the results. After a week of tests, I had one last scan of my bones. I was concerned when the technologist asked to do a special scan of my back that had not been done before. The next day, I called Dr. Lynch's office and asked his assistant, Mary Elen Rousell, when I could come in to find out the results. She said, ``How about this afternoon?'' and then added, ``You might want to bring someone.'' My heart skipped. When my wife and I entered Dr. Lynch's office and saw his face, our hearts sank. He was ashen. He said that while all the other scans were clear, there appeared to be a metastatic tumor in my spine. He explained that this meant that lung surgery at this point would be futile, since other metastases were likely to surface. Dr. Lynch said that he could not be 100 percent certain that this was a tumor and that, because so much was at stake, we should do a biopsy. My wife and I wept openly--in part because, looking at Dr. Lynch's face, we felt that he had lost hope. I could not help but ask what treatment options were available, and he mentioned a drug called Taxol. Still being the lawyer, I quizzed him: Me: What is the percentage of people who benefit from Taxol? Dr. Lynch: Forty percent. Me: How much do they benefit? Dr. Lynch: They can get several years of life, although it is not a cure. And the median survival for patients on Taxol with your advanced state of disease is nine months. Nine months! My wife and I cringed. I ended the session by asking Dr. Lynch, ``How do you do this work?'' And he answered, in genuine pain, ``By praying that I don't have days like today.'' I began to have trouble sleeping, and when I awoke, I was filled with dread and despair. I thought frequently of the observation of Richard Block, the founder of H&R Block, who had survived lung cancer after being told initially that he had only months to live: ``I lived for five days without hope and . . . my life during those five days . . . was far worse than at any time during the `horrible' ordeal of tests or treatments.'' And when I contemplated not living to see my son grow up or not cherishing my wife for a lifetime, I thought of King Lear, who, at a low point, wailed: I am bound Upon a wheel of fire, that mine own tears Do scald like molten lead. I desperately needed to regain hope, and I needed Dr. Lynch to regain his sense of hope. A few days later, I had the biopsy. Dr. Lynch met with my family to report that, indeed, after considerable searching, the pathologist had found small deposits of adenocarcinorea in my vertebra. It was now confirmed that I had metestatic lung cancer. Although my brother and my father, who is also a physician, raised the possibility of radical surgery on my back and lung to remove all the tumors, Dr. Lynch and the surgeons rejected this option because further metestates were likely to appear, and the surgery would be debilitating and reduce my quality of life at a time when my life could well be substantially shortened. The clear treatment was more chemotherapy. Dr. Lynch again recommended the use of Taxol, with the hope of slowing the cancer's spread. My wife and I were largely silent during the medical discussion. I asked my father and brother to leave so my wife and I could talk not facts and figures but matters of the heart. When they had left, I said to Dr. Lynch, ``You told me two things all along: One, that you were aiming for a total cure, and if that were not feasible, you would tell me at that time. And two, you would never, ever give up on me, never stop trying to fight, to extend my life as long as possible. Am I no longer on the cure route?'' He looked somberly at us and explained that there were no known treatments to cure this stage of cancer. ``And will you stick by me and fight to the end?'' I asked. He nodded vigorously and then outlined a number of state- of-the-art, experimental protocols from which I might benefit after Taxol. And, leaving statistics behind, he talked of several patients who had defied the odds and lived for years beyond expectations. He advised that my goal should be to be here the same time next year, and then the year after, and the year after--one day at a time, one month at a time, one year at a time. He mentioned several breast-cancer patients who had told him that they had relished their final years with their children in a way that they had never known before. It felt good to leave the medical talk and speak heart to heart, and it felt to me that he had regained a sense of hope--not for some magical cure but for the possibility of extending my life. It was critical to my wife and to me that he not give up hope. I understood his surprise and disappointment at the metastasis; in fact as one friend suggested, his distress in that event was a sign of his caring about me and his involvement with my case. But we desperately needed him to give us a realistic basis for hope--and he had. The next day, I began a new chapter in my fight. And once again, Mimi Bartholomay was by my side, monitoring my reaction and assuring me that most people tolerated Taxol very well. I had no allergic reactions, and I felt good that the battle was under way. I had hoped that maybe this would buy me time. Time was now my best friend, since it could allow medical research to advance and doctors to find new strategies and maybe even a cure for advanced lung cancer. During this period, with help from my father, who has had a long and distinguished career in academic medicine, I began to explore potential cutting-edge protocols that could supplement or follow Taxol. My father arranged a meeting for my wife and me with Dr. Knot J. Isselbacher, a distinguished researcher and director of the MGH Cancer Center. He is a small man with a large presence and piercing blue eyes, and he was surrounded by medical books, papers, and many pictures of his family. He was upbeat, telling us of protocols under way that showed promise in fighting metastatic tumors. Like several others, be told me a personal story that cut to the bone: A close family member, he said, had been diagnosed with advanced cancer, which the attending oncologist had said was ``very, very bad.'' The family member had said to him: ``Kurt you have helped so many people in your lie, can you now help me!'' He personally treated the family member in that person's home with chemotherapy, and, 21 years later, that person is thriving. Dr. Isselbacher offered to serve as an advocate for me, to work with my father and Dr. Lynch to find the most promising protocols. I told him at the meeting that while I had no illusions, I was deeply moved by his refusal to give up and by his abiding hope; I was especially affected because such hopefulness was not coming from a faith healer but a distinguished researcher. He has strengthened our resolve to fight. As I grappled to maintain my hope in the face of the advancing disease, I was referred to Dr. Ned Cassen, a senior MGH psychiatrist who not only had had vast experience with the seriously ill but was himself a Jesuit priest. I had met with him once during my second hospitalization, and my memory through the haze was that he was the first person with whom I had discussed death. I remembered that when I had asked him if, when, and how I should say goodbye to people, he said, ``You know, you don't have to wait to say goodbye; you can express you love and appreciation for people right now, every day.'' After the devastating news of the metastasis, I felt the urge to seek our Dr. Cassem again, in part to ask if there was anything more I should be doing to help my son, Ben, cope with my illness or the eventuality of my death. I mentioned that several people had suggested I make a videotape for Ben but that I thought I couldn't do that. Dr. Cassem replied that every time we played or laughed together, we were creating building blocks, precious memories that will be part of him forever. I also asked him if he thought I should be doing more to prepare for the possibility of an early death. He looked perplexed and asked, ``Have you prepared your will?'' I said yes. ``Are your affairs otherwise in order'' I again said yes. ``So it sounds like you are prepared. . . . Remember, death is a minor matter. Living . . . that's the challenge.'' I then told him of the paradox that moments of great pleasure--playing with my son, snuggling with my wife, talking intensely with friends--also caused me great pain and tears. Was I depressed? Was this something to worry about? He looked at me thoughtfully and said: ``When you cry about your son, it's because he has touched you deeply. It's an affirmation of your love for him. When you weep about the joy you experience with your wife or close friends that's an acknowledgment of your love for them. That's not a bad thing. . . . Maybe a day without tears has been a dull day.'' I nodded and then could not help but ask: ``Do you believe in the power of prayer'' Dr. Cassem nodded. ``Absolutely,'' he said, ``and your name is on my prayer list.'' I felt warmed in his presence, by his wisdom, his common sense, and his spirituality. In recent months, I have had several setbacks: a bone scan that showed four to five additional tumors, and a CT scan that showed significant progression of the cancer in both lungs. The only good news was that it had not spread to my head or liver. I am pained, but not surprised, at the relentlessness of the disease, and I am straining to retain hope that one of the experimental treatments may succeed where chemotherapy has failed. For the first time, I recently mentioned to Dr. Lynch the idea of a hospice service and wondered how I might reduce future pain as the cancer progresses. Dr. Lynch answered that we were still a long way from that discussion, that we still had many avenues to explore, and that he remained as committed as ever to doing whatever he could to extend my life in a quality way. Around the time of the CT scan, when I was feeling particularly dejected, I had an appointment with Mimi Bartholomay for an injection. She was running late, and as she approached me in the clinic waiting room, she looked harried. But as she got closer, she could see how unhappy I was, and she put her arm around me and directed me to a private room. I began to cry, and she intuitively responded: ``You know, scan days are the [[Page S 14209]] worst. But whatever the results, we are not going to give up on you. We're going to fight with you and for you all the way.'' I hugged her and thanked her for hanging in there with me. If I have learned anything, it is that we never know when, how, or whom a serious illness will strike. If and when it does, each one of us wants not simply the best possible care for our body but for our whole being. I still am bound upon Lear's wheel of fire, but the love and devotion of my family and friends, and the deep caring and engagement of my caregivers, have been a tonic for my soul and have helped to take some of the sting from my scalding tears.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I know the Senator knows the answer to this because he taught most of us how to do it. That is, through a unanimous-consent request, when there is this kind of a legislative impasse, you can accomplish anything on the Senate floor; is that not true?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I would love to put in a quorum call and have a moment to talk to my friend and see if we can work through it. Again, let me outline what we have suggested as a fair approach. We would like to know a date certain that the START Treaty could come to the floor and have a vote.

Mr. KERRY. That is affirmative. We have suggested an alternative figure and structure.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have suggested an alternative figure.

Mr. KERRY. I am always prepared to try to see if we can work things out.

Mr. KERRY. The money is in the appropriations bill, but it is not in the appropriations bill in the amount that the money is in the Senator's amendment. So for us to accept his staff's word that because it is authorized, somehow the problem goes away, is incorrect. The problem remains because the appropriators have not given us the money.

Mr. KERRY. Yes.

Mr. KERRY. But if, merely because the chairman holds up all the nominations, and then attaches himself to a bill that his colleagues on his side of the aisle want very badly, all of a sudden we on this side of the aisle are supposed to give up our legislative prerogative and reward the holding of hostage of all of these ambassadors with the creation of a legislative agenda that is totally contrary to the administration's interests, I do not find it very puzzling why people would oppose that.

Mr. KERRY. Well, I know that the Senator from Kentucky is not easily stunned. So I understand that this must be one of those major legislative brouhahas. But I am not sure that it really is. I do not think it is that stupefying. At this moment in the legislative process, a consolidation in a format that the administration does not accept at a level of reduction that the administration does not accept is not going anywhere.