John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Would it be possible to proceed for 5 minutes or so on a subject outside of that?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you, I thank Senator Pell, for affording us a few moments to be able to speak about our colleague. Mr. President, what a pleasure and what a privilege it has been to serve with Claiborne Pell. About 2 months ago, after one of our late- night sessions, I had a chance to give him a lift home. And in the course of that we had a chat about the incipient decision that he was facing. And I was struck as he sort of chatted through the options and the choices available to him how totally compelled he was by the notion that there was work left undone and this incredible sense of responsibility that he felt to the country, to Rhode Island. That is what weighed on him in the decision, not a lot of the other considerations that many people tally up on a yellow legal pad and weigh. But it is characteristic of Claiborne Pell that it was, above all, his sense of duty, the sense of personal responsibility that compelled him to enter public life in the first place and that has guided these remarkable 36 years that he has served as a U.S. Senator. I daresay to my colleagues that if there were 59 other Claiborne Pells in the Senate, and perhaps even 99, as a wishful thought, we would not have half the conflict, a quarter of the conflict, maybe any conflict. We would certainly not be looking toward confrontation in the days ahead, perhaps even the train wreck everybody talks about, because above all Claiborne Pell is guided by a sense of decency and by common sense, by good old New England common sense, that says you can work it out. And I think that example I hope is something that will rub off on the Senate in the days ahead. Others have spoken about his many accomplishments, and there are many a lot of the people do not know that much about because, again, uncharacteristically, compared to the norms of modern American politics, he is self-effacing beyond anybody else's capacity in the Senate. He is somebody who believes simply in doing what is right and doing it in the sense of responsibility and decency that guides him. Senator Harkin wondered out loud about those who have been educated by Senator Pell. Millions of Americans have been educated on Pell grants. One-fifth of the population of this country has gone to school because of this U.S. Senator. Sixty-three billion dollars has been invested in the future of the country in educating people and helping to churn the engine of our economy and create the remarkable technological and research and development capacity of this great Nation. Most people, if they thought of the engine of America, probably will not immediately associate it with the Pell grant or with his efforts. But that is, in and of itself, an extraordinary accomplishment. In addition to that, he has been the principal Senate sponsor of the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities, recognizing the extraordinary linkage between a nation and a civilization in its support for the arts and its literacy. He was the author of the National Sea Grant College Program, and a founding member who served for years as the Senate cochairman of the Helsinki Commission. He has been one of the strongest proponents of arms control in the U.S. Senate, and as a member of the Senate observer group and as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, has played a principal role in helping to move this country to a reasonable arms control policy. He can take credit, though he personally never does, for bringing to the Senate for approval the INF Treaty, the CFE Treaty, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty, and he took the lead in Senate action in favor of the Sea Ban Armaments Control Treaty and Environmental Modification Convention. He also authored legislation in 1994 that revitalized and strengthened that, and he has been the principal author of legislation imposing sanctions against the development and use of chemical and biological weapons. In 1994, he authored legislation to place tough sanctions on countries and individuals involved in nuclear weapons proliferation. Mr. President, I have been privileged in the 11 years that I have served here to serve with Senator Pell both as ranking member and as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Interestingly enough, my relationship with Senator Pell did not begin with my entry as a freshman on the Foreign Relations Committee. Twenty- four years ago when I first came back from Vietnam, Senator Fulbright invited me to testify before the committee. And it was Senator Pell who was among those on the committee and in the Senate most prepared to listen and to take the position of courage with respect to the difficult choices America faced at that period of time. I will personally never forget his warm welcome to me as a young returning naval officer and his then brave and perhaps ill-advised suggestion that I might someday consider [[Page S 12563]] running for the U.S. Senate and that he even hoped I might serve with him on the Foreign Relations Committee. I am confident it was one of those comments that neither he nor I thought might come true or had a sense of reality. But it has been a great privilege that in fact it did and that we have served together. Let me just close by saying a word about his leadership on that committee. Senator Pell led quietly. He led with grace. He led with remarkable integrity and with a sense of everybody's place. Unlike some here who are very quick to resort to parliamentary rules rather than let the power of reason or of dialog work its will and somehow quash that capacity, Senator Pell always permitted every voice on the committee to be heard to the point of exhaustion--usually ours, not his. He showed patience where patience had been tested, and he was always, always civil, even in the most trying moments. There is no one on the Foreign Relations Committee on either side of the aisle who would ever question the full measure of this man's decency or of his commitment to the public dialog. He has shown an extraordinary public integrity, an extraordinary commitment to the best ideals of public service, an extraordinary commitment and sense of duty and public responsibility. I think that all of us, Rhode Island particularly, will understand that with his departure from the Senate, the Senate and the country lose a voice for peace, a voice for reasonableness, a voice for the environment, a voice for human rights, a voice for civil rights, a voice for women, and above all a voice for education and for the future. We will miss his service and the quality of his character enormously. I yield the floor. (At the request of Mr. Dole, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.) retirement of senator claiborne pell

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, with Senators Pell and Inouye, I introduce the Marine Aquaculture Act of 1995, a bill of great interest to me both in my role as ranking member of the Commerce Committee's Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, and as a Senator from a State with a significant interest in the development of an environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry. The primary purpose of this bill is to promote marine aquaculture research and the development of an environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry in the United States. The development of a marine aquaculture industry is also of great interest to my colleagues from Rhode Island and Hawaii, and I thank them for their cosponsorship. Indeed, most coastal States should have an interest in the growth of an economically and environmentally sound marine aquaculture industry for a number of reasons. First, in a time when many domestic fisheries are increasingly overexploited and management measures become ever more restrictive, marine aquaculture can provide alternative or additional employment opportunities for displaced fishermen and other entrepreneurs. Second, marine aquaculture could play a critical role in enhancing and restoring depleted fish stocks. Third, investment in marine aquaculture research and development activities can stimulate local and regional economies providing benefits reaching far beyond the original investment. Fourth, by providing high quality fish and seafood products for domestic consumption and export, a strong marine aquaculture industry can help reduce the multibillion dollar U.S. fisheries trade deficit. The United States stands poised to tap into an ever-expanding global market for marine aquaculture products. The United Nations estimates that in the year 2010 an additional 19 million tons of fish protein will be needed annually to maintain consumption at current levels, assuming present population growth. Global harvests of fish continue to decline from their 1989 peak of 100 million tons. About 70 percent of the world's marine fish stocks are classified as fully exploited, over- exploited, or recovering. Clearly, harvesting of wild fish and shellfish stocks will not be able to meet this shortfall. Therefore, more and more people are looking to aquaculture to make up this deficit. In response, the marine aquaculture industry in many countries has grown rapidly, often heavily subsidized by foreign governments. In 1992, China was the leading aquaculture producer with 8.6 million metric tons, nearly 50 percent of the total world aquaculture production. The United States was a distant fifth, with only 400,000 metric tons, less than 4 percent of the world's acquaculture production. Worldwide, coastal, and marine acquaculture comprise approximately 40 percent of total aquaculture production. Many of these fish and seafood products are aggressively marketed in the United States. We have a significant opportunity to develop a globally competitive domestic marine aquaculture industry to meet future fish and seafood demand. The Marine Aquaculture Act provides the support necessary to make the best of this opportunity. There is also a need for a bill that addresses the unique requirements of aquaculture development in the marine and coastal environment. Much of the private aquaculture industry has invested in and developed land-based aquaculture facilities on privately owned land. The coastal zone and marine waters of the United States, however, are not subject to private ownership and support a variety of public trust uses, including navigation, fishing, recreation, and national defense. Private investment in marine aquaculture is imperative, but must proceed without posing unreasonable constraints or other public trust uses of marine and coastal waters. A recent National Research Council study concludes that constraints on the economic success of the marine acquaculture industry include: First, public concerns about a broad range of [[Page S 12392]] environmental, ecological, and aesthetic issues; and, second, conflicts with other uses of coastal and marine areas. The report also concludes that the current confusing system of Federal and State laws are regulations impedes growth of the marine aquaculture industry, and that additional scientific, technological and engineering research is necessary to ensure more cost-effective and environmentally sound operations. The Marine Aquaculture Act clarifies the patchwork of regulatory authorities and makes funding more readily available for research and development. The Department of Commerce, which has primary management authority for marine resource conservation and protection of the marine environment, and which through the National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS] and Sea Grant has long been engaged in aquaculture research and development, is best equipped to coordinate and manage the development of an environmentally sound aquaculture industry in marine and coast waters. Utilizing Department of Commerce expertise, the bill would, first, clear up the regulatory maze by making the Department of Commerce the one-stop-shop for permits to own, construct, or operate an offshore marine aquaculture facility in Federal waters; second create a coastal and marine aquaculture research and development program under the National Sea Grant College Program Act; third, increase financial assistance for marine aquaculture ventures by making existing financial assistance programs for fishermen available for the first time to marine aquaculture development; fourth, ensure protection of the marine environment by requiring the Secretary of Commerce to establish environmental standards for offshore marine aquaculture facilities and, in consultation with other appropriate Federal and State agencies, to establish model environmental guidelines for marine aquaculture facilities within State waters. In developing a marine aquaculture industry, we must also realize that the environmental problems facing marine aquaculture facilities are unique and potentially more difficult than those of land-based facilities. This bill addresses the need for environmental safeguards and would provide for the establishment of standards to minimize adverse impacts on the marine environment of offshore marine aquaculture facilities. These standards would include safeguards to, first, protect wild fish stocks from genetic contamination; second, prevent or minimize ecological or economic harm to marine ecosystems from introduction of nonindigenous marine species; third, prevent or minimize transmission of disease to wild stocks; fourth, maintain applicable Federal water quality standards; and fifth, ensure that efforts to control predation on cultivated stocks are environmentally and ecologically sound. Addressing environmental concerns associated with marine aquaculture activities is necessary to enhance the prospects of developing an economically--and environmen- tally-- sustainable industry. As an additional barrier to developing this industry, many of the traditional forms of financial assistance to fishermen through Department of Commerce programs have not been as widely available for the development of marine aquaculture facilities because of funding limitations and restrictions in authorizing legislation. To address that problem, The Marine Aquaculture Act restructurers existing financial assistance programs available to fishermen, and promotes research and development in marine aquaculture and other disciplines related to the success of such ventures. I am aware that my colleague, Senator Akaka, has introduced a general aquaculture bill. I want to emphasize that the Marine Aquaculture Act deals solely with marine aquaculture and is intended to complement rather than compete with or displace Senator Akaka's bill. I look forward to working with Senator Akaka and all other Senators who have interest in this subject to develop a comprehensive program to promote aquaculture research and development on both private and public lands. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in full in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on Thursday, August 10, the distinguished Senator from Hawaii, Mr. Akaka, offered an amendment--number 2406--to the fiscal year 1996 Defense appropriations bill expressing concern regarding France's decision to conduct further nuclear tests in the South Pacific, and strongly encouraging France to abide by the current international moratorium on nuclear testing and to refrain from proceeding with its announced testing intentions. As a cosponsor of the similar freestanding resolution the Senator from Hawaii had earlier introduced, it was my intention to speak in favor of the amendment. But in their energetic efforts to expedite Senate action on this legislation, the managers of the bill quickly indicated their approval of the amendment, and it was approved by a voice vote before I was able to speak. Even though I cannot speak prior to the Senate's favorable action on this amendment, I nonetheless would like to provide my endorsement of this amendment and to explain my reasons for supporting it. In May of this year the world took an important step toward stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and reducing the future threat from these weapons, when the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was indefinitely extended. The next step will be negotiation and ratification of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to finally and permanently end all nuclear testing. When we reach this goal, the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief as the era of nuclear explosions becomes part of history. I hope and believe that we can complete such a treaty by the end of next year. Unfortunately, the recent French decision to resume their nuclear testing program with eight explosions in the South Pacific flies in the face of the world's nonproliferation efforts. The French decision, coupled with the continued Chinese testing program, makes it extremely difficult to convince non-nuclear states of the sincerity of promises by the nuclear powers to end testing and reduce stockpiles. The Chinese demonstrated the height of arrogance by detonating a nuclear explosion four days after the Non-Proliferation Treaty was indefinitely extended. Now the French have decided to abandon the self- imposed testing moratorium to which they, Russia, the United States, and Great Britain have adhered since 1992. This is a huge mistake. The French argue that they need these eight tests to guarantee the safety and reliability of their deterrent forces. These are the same arguments always used to justify continued testing. The idea that without testing reliability will decrease enough to affect deterrence is absolutely absurd. Warhead designs for the nuclear powers are proven and reliable and no nation would dare to test that reliability in a way that would risk nuclear retaliation. Deterrence will not be undermined by the absence of testing. If this argument had merit we would not need to worry about North Korea, Pakistan, or India possessing nuclear weapons because they have never had a test program. Obviously the horror of nuclear weapons and the fear of their use is enough deterrence. It is not necessary to constantly test in order to engender that fear. The question of safety is an important one but relying on this rationale means a nuclear state can never stop testing. There will always be some level of uncertainty, some new safety measure or some new technology that the weapons builders would like to incorporate. In reality the current level of stockpile safety is adequate even though the United States, Great Britain, France, and Russia have refrained from testing since 1992. If continued safety requires computer simulation, then we should complete the development of such programs. But the 2,000 tests conducted by the five nuclear powers, including more than 200 by the French, provide a more than adequate empirical data base to move this technology forward. If the French need additional data, as they claim, or other assistance in developing their own stockpile stewardship program, then the United States should offer that assistance. This is no excuse for continuing nuclear testing. It is all too easy to rationalize additional tests or different types of tests, such as the hydronuclear tests proposed by some here in the United States, as necessary for reliability or safety. In doing this we focus to narrowly on technical questions and miss the larger point that as long as the nuclear powers insist on continuing their programs the nuclear specter will hang over the world, and other nations will feel compelled to pursue development of their own weapons. It is disingenuous for the nuclear powers to say to the rest of the world [[Page S 12369]] that after more than 2,000 tests over 40 years, we are finally going to negotiate a comprehensive test ban and then immediately begin more tests. The real threat facing the world is not the lack of safety and reliability of nuclear stockpiles, it is the threat of the continued spread of nuclear weapons. The French decision is a mistake for other reasons as well. The eight proposed tests will take place in the colony of French Polynesia far from the French homeland and without any regard for the feelings of the residents or the neighboring states. Australia, New Zealand, and nations all around Pacific Rim have condemned the decision. Earlier this month, 2 days before the 50th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese Diet joined other Pacific nations in calling for France to stop the testing. Studies repeatedly have detected contamination from the test site despite French claims to the contrary. Radioactive iodine, cesium 134, and plutonium all have leaked from the lagoon at the test site. By ignoring the concerns of the natives and neighbors, France invokes the memory of the worst of the colonial period. The people of this region do not want their backyard used as nuclear test bed and waste dump. The amendment offered by the distinguished Senator from Hawaii reflects the concerns of the citizens of his State, but also reflects the concerns of many others. I supported his amendment, and am pleased the Senate acted to add it to the Defense appropriations bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, next month the Fourth World Conference on Women will take place in Beijing. During Senate consideration of S. 908, the foreign Relations Revitalization Act, last month, there was some discussion about this conference. At that time, an amendment offered by Senator Hutchison was adopted on a voice vote by Senator Helms and me, as the managers of the bill. That amendment expressed the sense of the Congress on the goals that the United States delegation should promote at Beijing including ensuring that the traditional family is upheld as a fundamental unit of society and defining gender as the biological classification of male and female. I would like to point out that I agreed to accept this amendment in the interest of moving the legislation process forward. I would also add that the underlying legislation, S. 908, was returned to the calendar because cloture was not invoked. As Senator Boxer noted accurately in her comments on the Senate floor on the amendment, some of the language seems to raise questions or at least be unnecessary. We all know that there are only two genders, male and female. Why we need to insturct our delegation in that basic fact of biology is unclear to me. Also, the language about promoting the family as the fundamental unit of society raises questions in my mind as to whether a single woman constitutes a family with the right of protection by society. Are we saying that every woman must be married and have children to be protected? I would hope not because no woman should be denied rights simply because she chooses not to marry or if she is divorced. Unfortunately, Senator Hutchison was not on the Senate floor to address these questions at the time they were raised by Senator Boxer. Therefore, the real intent of her amendment, which to the best of my recollection only two Members of the Senate--the managers--agreed to, remains unclear. Mr. President, on August 2, Ambassador Albright spoke to the Center for National Policy about the Women's Conference. In that address, she dicussed the U.S. goals at that conference. I ask that her remarks be printed in the Record. [[Page S 12362]] The remarks follow: Ambassador Madeleine Albright, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Concerning the Fourth World Conference on Women Center for National Policy Breakfast--Washington, DC Good Morning. I am pleased to be here. I may be prejudiced, but I think the Center for National Policy is a great organization, and I appreciate its willingness to sponsor this timely event. The Fourth World Conference on Women will convene in China in 33 days and, let there be no doubt, the United States will be there. We will be there because this conference is a rare opportunity to chart further gains in the status and rights of more than half the people on earth. As leader of the American delegation, I am confident that U.S. goals will have strong support. These include-- promoting and protecting the human rights of women and ending violence against women; expanding the participation of women in political and economic decisionmaking; assuring equal access for women to education and health care throughout their lives; strengthening families through efforts to balance the work and family responsibilities of both women and men; and recognizing the increased role of nongovernmental organizations (NGO's) in building strong communities--at the local, national and international levels. The conference in Beijing will be the fourth in a series begun 20 years ago in Mexico City. These gatherings have spurred legal, social and political reforms that have enhanced the lives of women and girls around the globe. Our goal now is to build on past gains and to hasten the removal of continuing obstacles to the full and equal participation of women in society. As someone whose family was driven from its home twice when I was a child, first by Hitler, then by Stalin, I believe it is the responsibility of every free person to do what he or she can to advance the freedom of others. And I intend to see that the U.S. delegation to the Women's Conference serves as an unabashed advocate for freedom and human rights. Unfortunately, today, in countries around the world, appalling abuses are being committed against women. These include coerced abortions and sterilizations, children sold into prostitution, ritual mutilations, dowry murders and official indifference to violence. The Clinton Administration will use the conference in Beijing to underline the truth that violence against women is no one's prerogative; it is not a cultural choice; it is not an inevitable consequence of biology--it is a crime that we all have a responsibility to condemn, prevent, punish and stop. Now, there are those who say that we should withdraw from the Women's Conference because of human rights policies of the host country. Those suggestions are well-motivated, but they miss the main point. American withdrawal would not stop the conference or cause it to be moved; it would lead, instead, to a conference in which 130 million American women would be unrepresented and in which American influence and leadership would not be felt. It just does not make sense, in the name of human rights, to boycott a conference that has, as a primary purpose, the promotion of human rights. The way to help women, in China and elsewhere, is not to abandon the field to others, but rather to attend this conference, to debate head-on the differences of philosophy and ideology that exist, to lay out before the world the abuses we want to halt and the obstacles to progress we want to remove, and to gain commitments to change from the societies most in need of change. That is what leadership and a commitment to free and open discussion are all about. With respect to Harry Wu, our position is clear. He should be released immediately and unharmed. His case is a top priority for the United States. I can understand why some would want to tie conference participation to Mr. Wu's release, but that assumes falsely that our attendance would be some sort of favor to Beijing. We have no cause to believe that our approach to the conference will have any impact on China's decisions concerning Mr. Wu. We do have reason, however, to hope that the conference will have a positive effect on the status of women in China. Conference preparations already have contributed to a heightened awareness within China of women's issues. There is public discussion of previously taboo subjects, including violence against women. Chinese returning from the preparatory meetings have described their heightened sensitivity to the treatment of women in the media and to the economic exploitation of women. It matters a great deal that more than 5,000 Chinese women will participate in the NGO forum and will take their impressions back to their communities. Given the nature of China's human rights record, I do not mean to exaggerate the impact of this one conference. But as a former board member of the National Endowment for Democracy, I know that one of the best ways to promote democratic thinking is to expose people to new ideas on matters that relate directly to their own lives. Exposure to such thinking matters to us not only in China, but around the world, because countries in which women have a fair share of power tend to be more stable, democratic, prosperous and just than those in which women are marginalized and repressed. The Women's Conference will contribute to a freer and more equitable world. As its recommendations are implemented, it will also strengthen families around the world. We know from our own experience that when families are strong, children are cared for, socially constructive values are taught and an environment is created in which civility and law may thrive. So we want momentum to build around the idea that women and men should share fairly in the responsibilities of family life; we want to see girls valued to the same degree as boys; we want parents and prospective parents to be able to make informed judgments as they plan their families; and we want to see domestic violence curtailed and condemned. Each of these is a central element of the Conference draft Platform for Action. And effective action on each will help families and communities everywhere. Despite recent gains, women remain an undervalued and underdeveloped human resource. This is not to say that women have trouble finding work; in many societies--especially in rural, agriculturally-based areas--they do the vast majority of the work; but they don't own the land, they are not taught to read, they can't obtain personal or business loans and they are denied equal access to the levers of political decisionmaking. It is no accident that most of those in the world who are abjectly poor are women, often caring for children without the help of the children's father; many trapped from an early age in a web of abuse, discrimination, ignorance and powerlessness from which only a few are able to escape. We cannot be indifferent. It is reported that, in Angola, one-third of all homicides are perpetrated against women, usually by their spouse. In Thailand, child prostitution is growing because clients believe older prostitutes are more likely to be infected by

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On The Motion To Table The Motion To Recommit

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for yielding me this time, which is obviously a sign of how truly contentious this amendment is and where it may wind up. But I just would like to suggest to my colleagues that, if we stand back from the norm that has governed the way in which we have passed the Defense authorization and the Defense appropriations bills in the past, measure it against the needs of the country, measure it against the needs of the military, and measure it against reality, you really cannot help but ask yourself: How is it when last year we enacted a $241 billion budget, that this year where the President requested, with the consent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a $236 billion budget, we are, nevertheless, increasing the Defense budget? We are increasing it in the face of extraordinary cuts in almost every other portion of the budget. We are cutting safe schools and drug-free schools. We are cutting substance abuse money. We are even targeting Cops in the Street money. Yet, here we are with the end of the cold war incapable of finding a 2-percent reduction in the military budget. Now, I think I am as sensitive as anybody here to having a military that [[Page S 12322]] is second to nobody in the world. But I would respectfully suggest to my colleagues that with creative approaches, for instance, encouraging private ownership of industrial assets used in defense production-- something that should appeal to everybody here--with a procurement of the most cost-effective airlift, the C-17's, or commercial, with the repeal of something as wasteful and as ancillary as the civilian marksmanship program, if we were simply to scale back the production level and maintenance activities at DOE to support an arsenal level of 4,000 warheads, which is above START II, all of these things would leave us with an adequate deterrent capacity--and all of these things would not threaten our defense capacity one iota--we could find a 2- percent reduction in this budget. So this is a vote really about our own creativity and our own thoughtfulness and our own capacity to try to show Americans that as we reduce 15, 20, 8, or 10 percent in all the other sectors of the budget that affect Americans equally, we ought to be able to find the 2- percent reduction in this budget. We are instead raising this overall level over 1995, and we are raising it beyond the President's proposal. The difference is $6 billion. I would respectfully suggest that in the pipeline itself you can find hundreds of millions of dollars that would allow us to share the sacrifice that we are asking all Americans to bear. If we are going to ask them to bear a $270 billion reduction in Medicare so that we can give them back money in a tax reduction, we ought to at least be able to find 2 percent in this budget. So my amendment does not presume to tell people how to do it. It does not cut any one program. It simply says to the Armed Services Committee, take this back, be more creative, come back to us, show us a 2 percent reduction measured against the reductions in all of the rest of the budget. I think that is a fair and a sensible way to approach deficit reduction as well as the responsibilities of sharing the sacrifice. I yield back my time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce today with Senator Kennedy the Cohasset Harbor Navigation Project Act. This is a simple and straightforward bill that will enable an important navigation project in the harbor at Cohasset, MA to move ahead. Its purpose is to make a series of technical changes in the coordinates for the Army Corps of Engineers' Cohasset Harbor project that will enable the dredging project to proceed. The changes are necessary because of shoaling that has taken place since the harbor was last fully dredged in 1960. The shoaling led the Coast Guard in the Spring of 1994 to remove Cohasset Harbor from its previously recognized status as a ``safe harbor'' for storm refuge for certain vessels at sea. The Coast Guard now routinely sets and resets channel buoys which practically lay on their sides at low tide. Marine engineers and the Coast Guard agree that an offshore storm of any substantial magnitude will most probably cause the channel to be blocked completely by the transport of bottom sediment carried in storm surge waters. The situation is having a damaging effect on our commercial fishing fleet, and the safe boating environment of Cohasset's portion of Massachusetts Bay. Most of Cohasset's racing and recreational vessels of any significant size cannot move into or out of the Harbor within 2 hours of low tide. The Town of Cohasset has worked closely with all parties to expedite the dredging of the inner and outer portions of the Harbor. The necessary permits are in place and the funding of $1.415 million, of which the Federal share is 85 percent, is in place. All that is needed for the project to proceed are the technical corrections in the coordinates which this legislation will provide. No further funding is needed. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the relevant Committees to move this legislation forward. I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Let me answer that by saying to my friend I think there are three great issues that most Americans are concerned about. The first is their decline in income. It is the increasing anxiety of the workplace, the fear that people will lose a job, or that if they get a job, they cannot raise their standard of living, they cannot, even by working harder, make ends meet. That is the first and foremost priority of people in this country. I cannot point to very much--maybe some of my colleagues can do a better job than I can--but I cannot find anything that the Senate has worked on yet this year that will address that issue in a profound way. The second great issue that faces Americans is the question of whether or not they can walk out of their house and go out at night to a restaurant without fear of not finding their car when they come out of the restaurant, or maybe being hit over the head, or whether their kids can go out and play in a neighborhood. There is nothing that we have done, yet, that fundamentally addresses that need, except reduce the expenditures for substance abuse--the greatest problem in America being drugs--and target for attack the idea of putting more cops on our streets, which was the great issue of last year. The third great issue that I think Americans are concerned about is education. I just spoke about it. Our school systems are falling apart. In city after city, community after community, teachers are demoralized, people are not paid enough, the curriculum stinks. We have a whole host of problems, and here we are with Russia, at odds about whether or not to ratify the START treaty with a moment where we could be greater leaders in the world with respect to proliferation, with respect to our capacity to have intrusive inspection, and what are we doing? We are cutting Head Start. We are cutting substance abuse. We are targeting the program that puts police on the streets. We have not addressed one of those three profound needs, but we are going to spend more than the Joint Chiefs of Staff think we ought to, and that the Commander in Chief has asked us to, does not make sense, Mr. President. I thank my colleague for allowing me to put my amendment in at the appropriate time. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. That is correct.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. I will quickly explain this motion because it complements the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. The Senator is seeking a $3 billion reduction. This amendment seeks to recommit the bill on the basis that we should not be requesting more money than the President of the United States has requested. I think the Senator from Minnesota has most appropriately focused on a series of problems within the accounting process, in spending procurement process, of the Defense Department. In addition to that, Mr. President, I know the Senator feels this very strongly. We ought to be making decisions around here based on the real needs of the country, not on wish lists. It is very, very difficult when we look a the level of teenage pregnancy, when we look at the fact that last year 36 percent of the high school graduates in America graduated with a below basic reading level capacity. Fifty percent of minorities in this country graduated with a below basic reading level capacity. This means last year we put 750,000 people in the work force in America with a skill level for jobs that disappeared 50 years ago. That, Mr. President, is something we really ought to be focusing on. I can go through a list of items in this bill, including $564 million increase on fighter planes or $125 million increase on the request for the Kiowa Warrior Scout Helicopter and other things. I am all for upgrading and keeping up with a defense that is second to nobody in this planet. I believe, Mr. President, $236 billion will do that. There is not a compelling need to spend $242 billion-plus. Now, I think when we measure all of the things we have done, the Goals 2000 in education, we will cut substance abuse prevention money, we will cut safety schools and drug money, we are making it harder for kids to go to college, yet we are going to come along with a series of expenditures here ranging from the post 1996 D-5 missile production. If we have good enough START II implementation, and we get the Duma in Russia to ratify it and we continue downwards, there is no reason to build D-5's after 1996. We have money for that in here. We could increase burden sharing by the Republic of Korea. We can procure the most cost-effective airlifter, C-17's or commercial. There are many things we could do, Mr. President. I have $37 billion worth of reductions I think we could find. All we are looking for is $6 billion. I do not think at this time in the United States choice-making here in Washington, where we are seeking to find the things we need to do for the country that we ought to be filling some extraordinary wish list, when this golden moment in international affairs is staring us in the face. We could really make, I think, a tougher set of choices. I yield the floor back to the Senator. I simply think we ought to have a vote here before we put this bill away as to whether or not the President was not well advised to suggest to the U.S. Senate that $236 billion will do the job, and why it is that we must spend this additional $6 billion this year and a lot more over the next 5 years and beyond.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a motion to the desk and ask for its appropriate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague for his courtesy. Actually, I not only wanted to be part of the discussion, I wanted to ask my colleague for the forbearance to put an amendment in so that I could be covered by the 8:30 curfew.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Failing in their efforts to make abortion illegal, opponents of abortion are trying to make it more deadly. The AMA has shown that funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking early abortions increase the likelihood that they will bear unwanted children, continue health-threatening pregnancies to term, or undergo abortion procedures that endanger their lives. Abortion coverage is offered by over two-thirds of private health insurance plans, and just over half of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plans [FEHBPs]. Approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age rely on the FEHBP for their medical care. Because Congress has some measure of authority over the health benefits of this large pool of women, it is no surprise that abortion opponents target on it in their campaign to eliminate reproductive freedom. A ban on abortion coverage under FEHBP is inconsistent with the treatment of all other health services, which are included or excluded by health plans based on decisions made by the plans themselves, not by Congress. It is, in this respect, an intrusion in to the operations of the free market about which some of the most ardent supporters of this amendment sermonize so often. Barring abortion coverage for women and families working for the Federal Government denies these individuals a benefit they would most likely be able to obtain if they worked for a private employer. Let us not be confused by this debate into thinking that this ban would save money. In fact, it is an expensive ban, both financially-- because the health risks associated with out-of-plan abortions and ordinary, let alone complicated, births are not slight--and socially. These dogged, exhaustive efforts to chip away at a woman's constitutional right to choose lead to anxiety about the security of all our precious, constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. This is an unnecessary, unfair attempt to attack a fundamental, legal right that applies only to women. I urge my colleagues to join me in defeating this ban, because it is ill-advised, expensive, inappropriate, and wrong.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we do not need to abrogate the ABM Treaty in order to defend against a threat that does not exist, and will not exist for at least 10 years. Indeed, there are many things that we can do while remaining in full compliance with the ABM Treaty to prepare a defense, should the decision be that such preparations are warranted and their cost is justified. And we always retain the option, under the terms of the treaty, to withdraw from the treaty under its terms, or to negotiate modifications to the treaty if the Russians will agree to our objectives. I might add, respectfully, that there are other ways to respond to a perceived threat that do not require building $40 billion systems that we do not even know will work when they are completed. We could use permissive action links; we could be negotiating harder with the Russians, and others, to take steps to prevent any kind of accidental launch; we could pursue the activities supported by Nunn-Lugar program funding, including strengthening Russian government controls over their nuclear weapons, safely and surely dismantling surplus nuclear weapons and delivery systems, and preventing technicians from transferring dangerous technologies to rogue states; we can provide for integral systems that literally destroy a missile before it is launched if someone tries to fire it without authorization. Indeed, under the terms of the ABM Treaty, we already are allowed to develop an antiballistic missile defense system in one location, and we started to do some years ago in Grand Forks and then we decided it was too expensive and we gave it up. But that is not the course this bill takes, Madam President. The missile defense and ABM provisions of this bill are an exercise in sheer lunacy. This is an attempt to create from thin air a reason to continue the numbingly expensive defense systems that the demise of the cold war has made superfluous--while simultaneously threatening the tremendous progress we have made in reducing the threat to our people from nuclear weapons. The effect of this bill is to jettison the current, real, demonstrable protections of the START I and START II Treaties in exchange for spending a minimum of $40 billion to develop a system to attempt to defend our Nation against ballistic missiles--an entirely theoretical system that may or may not function as designed. There are some Senators who have argued that we must be prepared, even if the risk is small and distant, for the possible threat of a potential aggressor nation developing and choosing to use against the United States a ballistic missile carrying a weapon of mass destruction. Others have said that the biggest risk is that some rogue nations may purchase such systems from either Russia or China. Mr. President, the fact is that if such nations wish us ill, and choose to act on those wishes, there are far less expensive, far faster, far easier, and far less technically complicated and failure-prone ways to wreak ill on the United States--ways against which a national missile defense system would be powerless to defend. Should a rogue nation, for whatever reason, choose to pursue development and fielding of a ballistic missile system capable of reaching our Nation, that capacity is so far down the road, so prone to detection, and so capable of being preemptively neutralized if necessary, that the world should not shudder at the notion that we are somehow defenseless. The main threats to our Nation today are from terrorists rolling bombs, nuclear or conventional, into our cities in cars or trucks, or carrying them in suitcases. Or cruise missiles launched from offshore. These are threats that the $40 billion-plus national missile defense system either cannot defend against at all, or against which the system could defend only incompletely. The biggest threat of all, Madam President, is one right before our faces. It is the very same threat with which we have lived for the duration of the cold war, and which we finally reduced dramatically and are reducing further by the arms control treaties which are constructed on the bedrock foundation of the ABM Treaty. Trashing the ABM Treaty will rekindle the strategic/nuclear arms race with Russia, because even in its current condition of economic distress, Russia will do whatever is necessary to ensure it has an effective deterrent and retaliatory capability. Russia, at a minimum, will retarget its ICBM's and SLBM's on American cities, industries, and military installations. It will stop retiring and disassembling nuclear warheads and delivery systems. The progress toward a safer world that was so painstakingly and painfully achieved over two decades by Presidents of both parties would be demolished. Surely, in a world that lacks the Soviet empire, in a world where we do not have the same kind of threat we have lived with for the last 50 years, we do not have to turn around and create a new arms race. Let us review the effects of this provision of the bill: In one sweeping movement, we are effectively demolishing--unilaterally--a treaty to which our Nation is a party and which this Chamber ratified. This action simply ignores procedures to withdraw legally from a treaty we determine no longer is in our best interests. We are countenancing in law the known, deliberate violation of U.S. law. We are pushing Russia to cease abiding by the terms of START I and halt progress to implementation of START II. We are tying the hands of our President in terms of negotiating arms control agreements. And we are launching this Nation on the course of spending a minimum of $40 billion for an untried, untested missile defense system that will not protect against the greatest threats of attack on this Nation. The people of this Nation have long ago concluded that we in the Congress often make decisions and laws that make no sense to them. The provisions of this bill that pertain to missile defense and, in particular, to the ABM Treaty, result from fanning the flame of an irrational fear built on a fiction--a fiction with which none of our senior intelligence community officials agrees, and that has no basis in our foreign policy history, in our arms control history, or in current threat analysis. If the Senate approves these provisions, it will take one of the most outrageously nonsensical steps it has taken in my 11 years of service here. I strongly support the amendment of the Senator from Michigan in deleting the offensive language from this bill. I believe Senate adoption of his amendment is absolutely essential. Without approval of this amendment, I will vote against this bill and urge all Senators to do the same. I will join with other Senators to urge the President to veto it--a step he already has indicated he expects to take if these provisions are not acceptably modified. I believe this bill is destined for the trash heap if the amendment is not approved. I hope it will be approved by an overwhelming vote.

Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I want to congratulate the Senator from Michigan and also thank the Senator from Illinois for his comments with respect to this amendment. It seems that some of our colleagues in this body, in the wake of losing the former Soviet empire and the monolith of communism as targets of their opposition, now have lost their compass. They seem unsure of where to direct their energies and our taxpayers' money, and so are struggling to find another opponent at which to throw this Nation's treasure--regardless of the costs or risks entailed. The Soviet Union has ceased to exist, and we are well into implementation of the START I Treaty limiting nuclear weapons and on our way to a START II Treaty to dismantle strategic delivery systems and further limit nuclear weapons. So we are on a course where the compass clearly points toward reduction in the number of nuclear weapons present in our world, toward the reduction of risk to our citizens and our society itself from an aggressor's attack, toward the control and reduction of weapons, and, indeed, toward the creation of stability in our world's political equation. As all of us who grew up in the 1950's and 1960's understand, nuclear deterrence is built on the concept of mutually assured destruction. ``They'' can destroy ``us,'' ``we'' can destroy ``them,'' so neither chooses to destroy the other because nobody knows what would be left. In effect, that has maintained a state of rough peace--even if an uneasy peace--since the end of World War II. Certainly there have been surrogate wars and smaller skirmishes and client-state struggles around the globe, but the great nuclear powers have never seen fit to attack each other because of the belief that the damage that would be returned would be unacceptably great. Now, in 1995, we are no longer faced with Soviet expansionism, a Soviet desire to exploit every conceivable Western weakness, and, in every way short of initiating an all-out conflict, a Soviet desire to achieve and maintain the [[Page S 11261]] advantage in every competitive situation. We no longer stare across the North Pole at thousands of Soviet nuclear warheads targeted on America's cities, its industrial and military facilities, and its governmental and social lifelines. Yet in the bill that is before the Senate today, we have a provision that unilaterally abandons--and, I would argue, effectively nullifies--one of the critical ingredients that has brought us to the point where the compass is pointing in the right direction. The Antiballistic Missile--or ABM--Treaty is a keystone to this arms control progress--which already has made huge contributions to the security and safety of our Nation and its people, and offers the promise of even greater safety and security in the foreseeable future. The bill brought before the Senate by the Republican-controlled Armed Services Committee establishes as our national policy that we will have a national missile defense system at ``multiple locations,'' which violates the ABM Treaty. It says that we will develop defense systems against theater ballistic missiles without regard to the ABM Treaty restrictions. It prohibits our President from even negotiating on this subject. It prohibits any interference with TMD missile testing that is self-apparently illegal under the ABM Treaty which our Nation signed and this very body ratified. The bill before us unilaterally obliterates the ABM Treaty, Madam President. Anyone who understands the history and psyche of the Russian people knows that they adamantly insist on realistic means of defending their nation. Fundamental to their willingness to enter into arms control agreements, and to continue to abide by them, is a requirement that their strategic weapons systems be effective in order to serve as a real deterrent to aggression against their nation, and an effective means of retaliation if that deterrence fails. If the United States moves ahead unilaterally to build a system that can defend successfully against their strategic forces, we undo a delicate balance, and in the process almost surely destroy the willingness of the Russian nation to continue to honor arms control agreements that further damage their side of the balance-of-power equation. Madam President, nuclear deterrence is already tricky enough. But it really has always rested on each nation's perceptions of the others' forces and of the threat that is poised against it. We hold the upper hand with respect to that today, relative to every country on the face of this planet. Today, to break out of the ABM Treaty, or signal our intention to do so, is to invite a return to the days of suspicion and countersuspicion, and far more dangerously, to invite a diminishment of the stability of our current world order. It is not perfect, of course, but I think few would argue with the assertion that it is better than it was for the 40 years between 1949 and 1989. We do not attack each other, because we know to do so would be to beg the ultimate destruction. But if we develop a capacity to knock down anything that could be sent at us, we have changed the threat perception--the perception of whether a balance exists--changed it in our own mind, and changed it for those who are our adversaries. Changing the threat perception or the perception of whether a balance exists initiates the very hopscotching process that is the simple history of the entire cold war. We detonated the first atom bombs; the Soviets followed. We detonated the hydrogen bomb; they followed. We put long-range bombers in the air with nuclear weapons; they followed. We developed intercontinental ballistic missiles; they followed. We developed long-range submarines with ballistic missile capability; they followed. We developed multiple independently-targeted reentry vehicle or MIRVed nuclear warheads; they followed. Every single major episode of the cold war consisted of a first effort by the United States to develop technology that would give us an advantage. In every case, the Soviets responded by countering that advantage. After the Berlin wall fell, finally it became evident that this was an insane and vicious circle, consuming precious resources in our Nation and bankrupting the Soviet Union--in more than one respect. But now, at long last, that threat has receded. The Soviet Union is no more. And the threat of ballistic missile attack of the United States is virtually nil--and will be virtually nil for many years. Only Russia and China today can reach the United States with a nuclear warhead carried on an ICBM. All our intelligence agencies agree that there is no significant threat of such a missile attack today from either of those nations. Russia, while one must respect the military power still at its disposal, including intercontinental ballistic missiles, is not in any wise prepared to engage our Nation in an armed conflict. China has some strategic ballistic missile capability, but not anywhere close to enough to initiate a war with the United States. We are the only remaining superpower. And our intelligence community further agrees that no other nation will be able to develop the ability to hit the United States with ballistic-missile-conveyed weapons of mass destruction for a minimum of 10 years. Let me share with my colleagues an excerpt from the prepared statement of Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper, Jr., Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence at a public hearing on January 10 of this year on the threats faced by our Nation. General Clapper said, in part: We see no interest in or capability of any new country reaching the continental United States with a long-range missile for at least the next decade. Then-Acting Director of Central Intelligence Adm. William Studeman, in response to questions asked at that same hearing, replied that No new countries have emerged with the motivation to develop a missile to target CONUS and the four that we previously identified--North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and Libya-- are at least a decade away. The administration, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State are all opposed to the missile defense and ABM provisions of this bill. Let me share the Secretary of State's letter with the Senate. In a letter to the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, he says: I am writing to you to express my deep concern over certain provisions in S. 1026. Specifically, it contains missile defense and ABM Treaty-related provisions that raise serious constitutional foreign policy and national security concerns. Unless these provisions are removed or modified, I will oppose this bill. If enacted into law, the provisions related to missile defenses and the ABM Treaty would put the U.S. on a path to violate the ABM Treaty by developing for deployment a non- compliant, multi-site, National Missile Defense by the year 2003. Such a program is unnecessary and would place the START I and START II treaties at risk. I know that the Secretary of Defense also has opposed these provisions. Successive administrations, this one included, have supported the continued viability of the ABM Treaty as the best way to preserve and enhance our national security. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have the entire letter printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a defense bill must meet threats, real threats, not shadows or ghosts of threats disappeared. Our military leaders and our intelligence services have properly identified the threats our Nation faces. They have come before us and told us what threats we face. We have ignored much of their counsel and drafted a bill addressed to the realities of yesterday and a dark view of a possible future tens of years away. This provision if enacted will take a step toward abrogating the antiballistic missile treaty, scuttling the START II Treaty, and launching us back into the arms race of the cold war. This bill includes many weapons systems designed to match a missile threat from the Soviet Union that does not exist. Due to the diligent efforts of former President Bush, President Clinton, our diplomats and Senators like Mr. Nunn and Mr. Lugar, we have been able to substantially curtail that threat, to destroy hundreds of the missiles that used to be aimed at our nations, and to divert the targeting of the others that still remain. Since 1991, the Nunn-Lugar program has helped the states of the former Soviet Union to destroy their weapons of mass destruction and reduce the threat posed by proliferation of these weapons. This program remains an example of concise policy designed to meet an identified threat and has significantly improved our national security. We cannot stress to the appropriate degree how important arms control efforts have been to our national security. Today, as a result of bipartisan efforts from different administrations, Russia is planning to eliminate 6,000 nuclear warheads that formerly were directed toward our Nation. That is far more than any national missile defense could hope to destroy. It would be a shame if the other provisions of this bill caused this progress to be in vain. Therefore, I reject the provisions in this bill that if enacted will most likely resurrect an arms race between the United States and Russia. By unilaterally deciding what the ABM standard is in regard to missile interceptors, the Senate would disrupt the negotiating process currently underway. Not only is this an unwarranted intrusion into the normal working of foreign policy, this provision dangerously increases the risk that the ABM and other weapons treaties will be abrogated completely by the Russians. Later this year the Russian Duma was to vote on the ratification of START II. After they see the provisions in this bill regarding the ABM treaty, and realize how we plan to have a missile defense system that could theoretically counter an attack on the United States, the incentive to destroy the thousands of weapons called for in START II will be greatly diminished. Regardless of what we tell them, the Russians will logically be thinking, why destroy our missiles when we may need them to get through a U.S. missile defense system? Though its proponents claim this measure will protect us from a change in Russian policy, this measure will only further destabilize our relations and cause the hardliners in Russia to question our commitment to START II. We would be throwing away a chance to destroy literally thousands of nuclear weapons on the faint hope that we can build an impenetrable missile defense system. To justify the national missile defense system now when the Soviet threat is gone, the supporters of this bill are countering the views of our professional military and intelligence personnel and telling the American people a threat exists elsewhere when in fact it does not. The supporters of this bill say that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, or Libya now have or will have shortly the ability to launch a missile that can reach our shores. That is simply not the case. The report to this bill specifically notes the possible threat from the North Korean Taepo Dong II missile, which the report claims may have the range to hit Alaska. Since this weapon is in development, we do not in fact know that this missile will be capable of that range. But with North Korea in such dire straits economically and the growing possibility of its opening, with reunification with the south increasingly likely, should we spend billions on a missile defense system that probably won't work to counter a threat that may never exist? Our professional military and intelligence personnel, the people who have the training, the knowledge, and the access to the most sensitive of information to judge these threats, say there is no threat from any indigenously developed missile for the next 10 years. Yet the supporters of these provisions do not believe those who know the most about this subject. This presumed threat does not justify spending the tax money of American citizens on unproven and untested antiballistic missile defense. This bill adds $300 million this year toward a national missile defense system. In 1993, the GAO reported that the cost of such a system would total $35 billion and a CBO estimate from earlier this year pegged the cost at $48 billion. As we know from past estimates, these estimates would probably be low. The bill calls for the deployment of this system even though it is unproven and untested. Under the most likely of scenarios, the nuclear umbrella this would create would be a leaky one that fails to completely protect our Nation if the nonexistent threat were to become real. With nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, anything less than 100 percent certainty will not suffice. One clear lesson from history is that in military affairs, those who concentrate their efforts on defense are bound to fail. In the 1930's and 1940's France felt secure behind the Maginot Line. Their defensive posture was outwitted and decimated by a German Army dedicated to the offensive. When it comes to threats to the United States today, the means chosen to deliver a weapon of mass destruction would very likely be something other than a missile. It may be a cliche that the best defense is a good offense, but it is also true. We should look to counter any incipient threat from rogue nations through a robust offensive capability. If someone is intent on attacking the United States, they need not be rocket scientists to figure out our Nation's vulnerabilities. Why spend millions of dollars on missiles whose launch we can instantly trace and respond to with enough devastating force to destroy an entire civilization? No, our potential adversaries would most likely seek the path of least resistance. The delivery system posing the greatest threat is the rental truck, not a ballistic missile. We face that real threat through offensive actions against rogue nations and terrorist groups. We can support and focus our offensive capability through intense intelligence activities, so our policymakers and military commanders know most about what countries or groups are developing weapons of mass destruction, delivery systems, and the characteristics and locations of these systems. Next, the full diplomatic and economic [[Page S 11260]] powers of our Nation can be used to counter the threat that may develop. Then, if the developers cannot be dissuaded in peacetime, the weapons themselves can be destroyed either preemptively or in war. I have heard other Senators state that the United States is vulnerable to an accidental ballistic missile attack. The truth is, the situation today is the same as it has been for 30 years. We have managed to survive this long because governments have stressed proper security and operating procedures for these terrible weapons. Nations understand the gravity of a mistake when nuclear weapons are involved. That is why the launching of one of these missiles involves so many intricate, redundant steps with multiple built-in safeguards. Yes, Murphy's law is true. Accidents can happen. But to have an accidental ballistic missile launch, several accidents must occur. Several redundant safeguard systems would have to fail all in the proper sequence at the precise moment, not just multiple failures of equipment but also multiple failures of human judgment, communication, and authority. I am no statistician, but I bet the likelihood of all that occurring simultaneously is far more remote than other Senators have led the public to believe. It would be far more likely that an interceptor missile in the national missile defense aimed at a moving target would miss its mark. The threat of an accidental ballistic missile launch toward our shores does not meet even the lowest threshold to qualify as a legitimate threat. Again, I say to my colleagues, we need to have a rational assessment of the threats our Nation faces. And the threat we face from a Russia with several thousand more nuclear weapons is far greater than the threat from a Russia that abides by the START II agreement.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I hear the notion of popularity. There is a reason that one is popular and one is not. That is because one judgment is correct and the other is not. This is not a matter of partisanship, and it should not be. But it is highly inappropriate to apply a different standard that suggests that we are going to shut the door and sweep away the human capacity to speak to what has happened. These probable cause issues rise not just to the question of sexual misconduct, but they rise to the question of obstruction of justice, they rise to the question of a breach of ethics with respect to assistance in job finding for personal family members. And it is very hard to explain why all of a sudden sufficiency of record will be in depositions without senatorial participation. If that is the new standard around here, then let us fold up Waco, let us fold up Whitewater. Let us just do the depositions and live by that standard across the board. So the test here is very, very clear. And I congratulate my colleague for having the courage to bring it before the Senate. Mrs. BOXER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Can I have 1 additional minute?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from California. I would like to begin by paying tribute and gratitude to Members on both sides of the aisle who served on the Ethics Committee. They bear an enormous burden. There are too few here willing to serve. And we should all understand the difficulty of that service. Whether willful or not, Mr. President, the effect of denying a public hearing here is to sweep away the human voices and to replace them with paper. That is a denial of process. And it is a reversal of the very commitment made by the U.S. Senate recently where we voted to live the way other Americans live. If probable cause was found in a case of sexual misconduct against an American citizen, that American citizen would find themselves in a public situation facing an accuser, having a public review. It is only because there is this hybrid entity called an Ethics Committee that was set up, in a sense, to try to guide this special institution through its life that there is now a denial of that open process. It is contrary to all prior precedent where you have had a finding of probable cause, where you have found substantial and credible evidence. In every substantial and credible evidence case, the U.S. Senate has had a public hearing. If we are going to apply the standard which friends on the other side of the aisle are now suggesting, that when you build a sufficient record of depositions, you can make a judgment, that because it is encyclopedic you do not have to have a hearing, then let us end the Whitewater hearings today. Maybe we should come in here with a resolution as an addendum to this to say we have an encyclopedia of depositions. Let them speak for themselves. We do not have to hear from all these other people. I know my colleagues would vote against that. It is a double standard, double standard for Alan Cranston, double standard for John Glenn, John McCain, Don Riegle, and now here we are at a moment where the Senate has to make a judgment as to whether or not depositions speak like people. Bob Packwood had his moment before the members of this committee. It was sufficient for him to be able to come forward and look them in the eye and be able to be asked questions. But our colleagues are being denied that same right to provide a record. That is what is important here, Mr. President, the question of whether there will be a sufficiency of a record for the U.S. Senate, where people are put to the test. It may help Bob Packwood to have some of these people asked questions publicly, to have the full measure of these accusations judged by the American people, not off paper that everybody knows they will never read, but in the full light of day. That is what this is really about. Staff doing a deposition is not a Senator asking a question within public scrutiny of the hearing process. So I respectfully suggest, Mr. President, that based on precedent, based on the standard we have accepted in the Senate, based on the best means of providing process in this situation, i.e., adequate capacity to ask questions and to judge answers, it is appropriate for the Senate to explore this in public. And it is interesting to hear my colleagues suggest that somehow this is popular----

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, prior to the Senator proceeding, I ask unanimous consent to have printed a letter to the President of the United States from a series of groups with respect to this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend----

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would like to just pursue a few thoughts, Mr. President, before we perfect this. I gather now that it does need an amendment, needs to be perfected. I may not object to that. I want to clarify what it is we are precisely talking about.

Mr. KERRY. I wanted to know what his intention was before I give up the floor for any further action. I am trying to find out the status of the amendment.