John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I agree that the benefits do, but----

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 Magic Carpet to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, carrying up to 6 passengers on a charter business based out of Martha's Vineyard, MA. 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 considered foreign-made 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 1959, but since then has been owned and operated by American citizens. The owners of Magic Carpet have invested substantially more than the cost of building the boat in making repairs to it and maintaining it--in American shipyards with American products. This particular vessel is also of some historical value--Magic Carpet is a classic wooden yawl--few of these vessels still exist today and very few operate along the east coast. The owners wish to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out of Martha's Vineyard. After reviewing the facts in the case of the Magic Carpet, I find that this waiver 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 Magic Carpet to engage in coastwise trade. 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 Chrissy to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. This boat has a relatively small passenger capacity, carrying up to 6 passengers on a charter business based out of Gloucester, Massachusetts. Chrissy is a historical vessel, built in 1912 in Friendship, Maine and is one of the last remaining Friendship sloops. The purpose of this bill is to waive those sections of the Jones Act which prohibit vessels from operating in coastwise trade without proper documentation of its chain of ownership. The vessel was built 83 years ago in Maine, but along the way the documentation has been lost. It is my hope that a document will be issued which will allow the owner to start a small business, a charter boat operation, seasonally taking people out of Gloucester. 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 express my pleasure as the Senate prepares to pass the Fisheries Act of 1995. This legislation addresses an issue of great importance to the people of Massachusetts, the Nation, and, indeed, the world--the promotion of sustainable fisheries on a worldwide basis. One of the world's primary sources of dietary protein, marine fish stocks were once thought to be an inexhaustible resource. However, after peaking in 1989 at a record 100 million metric tons, world fish landings now have begun to decline. The current state of the world's fisheries has both environmental and political implications. Last year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] estimated that 13 of 17 major ocean fisheries may be in trouble. Competition among nations for dwindling resources has become all too familiar in many locations around the world. The bill we are passing today will strengthen international fisheries management. Among the provisions reinforcing U.S. commitments to conserve and manage global fisheries, are the following: First, implementation of the FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Convention and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas that would establish a system regulating U.S. vessels fishing on the high seas; second, implementation of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries that would provide for U.S. representation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization [NAFO] and coordination between NAFO and appropriate Regional Fishery Management Councils; third, improved research and international cooperation with respect to Atlantic bluefin tuna and other valuable highly migratory species; fourth, reimbursement of U.S. fishermen for illegal transit fees charged by the Canadian Government and for legal fees and costs incurred by the owners of vessels that were seized by the Canadian Government in a jurisdictional dispute that were necessary and related to securing the prompt release of the vessel; fifth, a ban on U.S. fishing activities in the central Sea of Okhotsk except where such fishing is conducted in accordance with a fishery agreement to which both the United States and Russia are parties; sixth, a prohibition on U.S. participation in international agreements on fisheries, marine resources, the use of the high seas, or trade in fish or fish products which undermine the United Nations moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing on the high seas; seventh, implementation of an interim agreement between the United States and Canada for the conservation of salmon stocks originating from the Yukon River in Canada; eighth, permission for U.S. documented vessels to fish for tuna in waters of the South Pacific Tuna Act of 1988 Area; and ninth, prohibition of a foreign allocation in any fishery within the United States exclusive economic zone unless a fishery management plan is in place for the fishery and the appropriate regional fishing council recommends the allocation. This bill will make a substantial contribution to U.S. leadership in the conservation and management of international fisheries. I want to acknowledge the leadership on this issue of the chairman of the Oceans and Fisheries Subcommittee, my friend the senior Senator from Alaska. It has been a pleasure working with him. I also want to thank the committee's distinguished ranking member, Senator Hollings, for his support on this bill. I also would like to recognize the staffs of the Commerce Committee for their diligence and their truly bipartisan efforts to bring this bill to the floor, specifically Penny Dalton and Lila Helms from the Democratic Staff and Tom Melius and Trevor Maccabe on the Republican side.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Ohio. I just wanted to rise for a few moments to say some words about the regulatory reform bill, and where we find ourselves now. Then I will make further comments at a later time. I thank the distinguished manager for the Democrats. Mr. President, I think it is fair to say that if you ask most people in the United States Senate, ``Do you favor regulatory reform?'' people are going to say, ``Yes; I am in favor of regulatory reform.'' We all understand that in the course of the last few years, regrettably, there have been some excesses that every single American has come to understand. And unfortunately, because of the negativity and conflict orientation of the press nowadays, the negative aspects of what has happened in environmentalism sometimes supersedes people's perceptions on the positive side. The truth is, in America, there have been remarkable gains over the course of the last 25 years in the particulates that we breathe, and in the level of our health as a consequence of better air. Today, cities can literally be viewed from airplanes, and from outside the city where, this one not be the case, a decade ago if you were in Denver or Los Angeles given the air pollution levels and smog. There are still problems, but the level is so markedly reduced from what it was that we tend to forget the benefits. If you look all across this country, there are rivers where salmon have returned and rivers that you can swim in and fish in. This was not the situation a number of years ago. There has been just an incredible increase in the quality of life for all Americans and the opportunities that are available as a consequence of positive choices we have made for the environment. On the other side of the ledger, there have been some terrible disasters in terms of our efforts to do better. The Superfund Program is a classic example of one of those efforts that has not done as well as intended. However, the Superfund Program is not really a reflection of what we need to do in regulatory reform. Yet it somehow finds its way into the bill that is currently on the floor. Likewise, with the Toxics Release Inventory, over the years since 1986, we have reduced over 40 percent the level of toxic releases into the atmosphere. And, there again, has been an enormous gain in terms of people's knowledge of what is happening in their community. That is all--just knowledge. That knowledge has empowered communities to make better choices and, in fact, many industries have voluntarily made choices based on the fact that they knew a particular community knew what was being released into the air. People have benefited. We have had an enormous reduction in the level of toxic releases. All by virtue of a community right-to-know program that is simply informative. All it does is let people know. It does not require a company to do anything. It does not take any chemical off the market. It does not prohibit it from being sold. It does not levy any fines. There is no administrative process except reporting information to the public. Yet, in this bill, there is a wholesale discarding of that particular process. It does not belong here. It should not be here. Similarly, the Delaney clause, which prevents people from being exposed to carcinogens in food additives. This is a critical program. Most people agree that there have been some problems in its administration, and we need to fix it. I agree, we ought to fix it. The Labor and Human Resources Committee and others have been working diligently on a fix. They are in the process of working within the committee with jurisdiction to rework the program. Then along comes this approach of just grabbing out of thin air and plunking into this bill what is not a fix, but an absolute eradication of the Delaney protections. That does not make sense. I do not think Americans have come in and said, ``Hey, expose me to a whole new set of carcinogens, and it really does not matter what is in my food.'' But that is the effect of what is in this legislation. Those were the ``special fixes,'' the provisions that do not relate to regulatory reform and that should not be in the legislation before us. In addition, Mr. President, I have some concerns with a number of provisions in the bill that actually address regulatory issues. For starters, this bill lowers the threshold for the definition of a ``major'' role in the rulemaking process. When the EPA or another agency decides that something is a major rule which then affords it a certain set of administrative procedures, the threshold today for a major rule is $100 million of annual economic impact. First, you have to make a determination that the rule will have an effect of $100 million of consequence, and then it is treated as a major rule. In the bill that is on the floor, the sponsors lower that threshold to just $50 million. The $100 million threshold was set in 1975 by President Ford. That 1975 value is worth just $35 million. It is not very hard to get to a $35 million current value in terms of rulemaking impact. If you lower that by half, to an $18 million impact, any lawyer worth his salt can come in and achieve that; particularly since the definition in this bill allows you to take indirect costs into account, you can very rapidly get to a $50 million consequence. What is the impact of that? Here is a bill that talks about being regulatory reform yet will open up a whole expanse of new rules subject to major rulemaking procedures which makes it then subject to court review. Currently, EPA spends $120 million per year to conduct risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis for major rules at the $100 million level. EPA estimates that it will need an increase of 191 percent to 458 percent to keep up with the increased workload. Nowadays the EPA handles approximately 10 rules per year that qualify as major rules. Under the $50 million threshold, we are going to go to 75 major rules per year just for rule at the $50 million threshold. In addition, in this bill before us, S. 343, the Superfund is lowered even further to a threshold of just $10 million which will cause a minimum of an additional 650 rules that need this new complex administrative procedure. Every one of us knows that no one is going to come down here and say ``add personnel to EPA, appoint more judges, give us the people to achieve this and make this work.'' So what you have here is not just an effort to have a legitimate reform of a system that I acknowledge needs reform. What you have is a totally calculated capacity to create gridlock within the system so the rules cannot be made and many of the rules on the books get eliminated. Now, there are a host of other problems with S. 343. There is a problem with the effective date. The effective date of this bill is upon enactment. The implication of this term will require going back to scratch and being over to develop any rules that are in the entire Federal Government system on that date, whatever that day may be. The impact may well be enormous from meat inspection regulations to drinking water protections and other things that would literally stop in midstream as a consequence. I do not think that is the intention of the authors. However, that will be the effect. These are the types of problems of which colleagues must be aware. This legislation currently leaves open to question a number of concerns such as this. Another very significant area is judicial review and the petition process developed in this bill. The bill before us [[Page S 9413]] has at least seven different tiers to its petition process. Unless it has been changed to reflect negotiations we have been having in the last few days, that opens up a Pandora's box of judicial review. You are going to have the capacity to go on for year after year after year with lawyers expending huge sums of money; this process will transform the whole regulatory process into the hands of somebody who has money rather than an evenhanded administrative process that seeks to balance the needs of the country. Mr. President, I want to emphasize I want to have a legislative reform bill. I think we must. I also want to emphasize that it is appropriate to have cost-benefit analysis and risk assessment. We should be making some determination of the benefits and the costs but we should not do it in a way that is so rigid that we literally deny ourselves the ability to include certain benefits to the country; even if an option is not the least cost alternative it may be something we want to do and we should not take away the discretion or the capacity of somebody to make that decision on the appropriate standards. Let me give an example from the air quality standards in the Clean Air Act. For 25 years it has been understood that the Federal Government would base its national ambient air quality standards not on a cost-benefit test, but on health protection standards--and I might add that even after 25 years of hard work over 100 million Americans still live in areas where these standards are not met. If this bill becomes law, I believe that it will be virtually impossible for EPA to base its standards on health protection, and it will begin an endless court process that will serve to set back. Under this bill, for example, if there is an existing statute that has a standard to achieve, for health reasons and other reasons, so many parts per million in air emissions and it is determined that number is a minimum standard, a floor level of protection, but that the agency has the discretion to go to a higher level in the statute because we want to get to at least a minimum standard knowing there is a minimum health benefit for getting to that minimum standard; and this minimum standards costs $10 million to achieve and it is the least cost alternative. Now, for $11 million, you may be able to get exponentially further in terms of public benefits, but it is not the least cost, the agency will not be able to go to the higher standard of benefit even if you want to spend the additional resources to get the vastly greater level of benefits. Under this bill, you will not be able to go to the higher standard of benefit because it is not the least cost alternative--even though that higher standard of benefit may give you other benefits of hospitalization reduction, long-term care reduction, quality of health, a whole number of important benefits, just because it is not the least cost for the purposes of the underlying statute's minimum gain you cannot do it. Now, Mr. President, in keeping with what I said to the Senator from Ohio, I am not going to go on, and I am not going to go through a complete analysis of the bill at this time. But I think it is absolutely essential that we approach this bill with a sober intention to legislate, not just to walk in lockstep to make happen what has come here in a very hasty process. The Environment Committee was bypassed. The chairman of the Environment Committee, a Republican, has signed on to an alternative version of this bill with Senator Glenn, and he will talk about that. The Judiciary Committee never got a chance to consider but a handful of amendments before the bill was forced out on a procedural maneuver. Senators wanted to, but they were never heard or given a chance to consider a vast number of amendments in committee. On the other hand, the Governmental Affairs Committee sent a bill out by a vote of 15 to nothing, yet that bill has been ignored. And it is essentially that bill with a couple of minor changes that the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Rhode Island will introduce, and I am glad to be a cosponsor of that, Mr. President. This bill has far-reaching implications for the health and safety and well-being of the United States of America. This bill should not become a grab bag, a greed effort by a lot of people who never wanted the EPA, who never wanted the Clean Air Act, never wanted the Clean Water Act, never wanted the Safe Drinking Water Act, never wanted the national parks program, never wanted any of these efforts in the first place. And we should not allow them under the guise of regulatory reform to undo 25 years of progress and effort, notwithstanding I emphasize a genuine need to have regulatory reform and to change the way we have been doing business in this city. So I am prepared to embrace a very legitimate effort to get there. I joined with a number of my colleagues to meet with the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Johnston, Senator Hatch, and others and we thought we were making some progress. I think we did make some progress. It is my hope that over the course of the next week we can continue that effort and hopefully work out the kinks in this bill in order to come up with a very significant vote in the Senate for regulatory reform. I wish to thank my colleague, Senator Glenn, very much for his gracious forbearance here, and I particularly thank him for his leadership on this effort. He is the person who has been working for years to come up with a reasonable alternative on this, and I am glad to be working with him on it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the legislation the Senate has been considering these past few days has been the subject of intense debate. While the legislation would appear to be rather dry and technical, its effect extends to a wide range of interests. Fraudulent actions by management can destroy an individual investor's retirement nest egg; likewise, a frivolous suit filed against a start-up high-technology company can stop that business dead in its tracks. Most of us would agree that our goal here is to strike a balance. I have been mindful that there are investors on both sides of the equation, and I have listened carefully to their concerns. I have also spoken with SEC Chairman Arthur Levitt about his agency's concerns and recommendations about enforcing our securities laws. Me and my staff have met regularly with the high-technology community in Massachusetts on this issue. This sector, which has been the most frequent target of strike suits, is critical to our economic growth and the creation of highly skilled, family-wage jobs. I want this sector to continue to grow and prosper, but frivolous strike suits have a truly chilling effect on start-up high-technology, bio-technology, and other growth businesses. The committee report states: ``small, high-growth businesses--because of the volatility of their stock prices--are particularly vulnerable to securities fraud lawsuits when projections do not materialize.'' Companies in Massachusetts and elsewhere have been hurt, but more importantly the people in those companies--from the CEO's on down--have been hurt by such strike suits. I can also cite cases where companies in Massachusetts repeatedly misrepresented sales, senior executives had to resign, and some of the companies went bankrupt. In one case a company paid an analyst for a leading national business magazine to publish a favorable report about its projected sales and earnings. Cases remain pending against some of the auditors, so I will not mention names. These fraudulent actions resulted in hundreds if not thousands of investors losing significant amounts, if not all, of their investments. The point is: It is not difficult to find instances of abuse on both sides of the issue. There is no doubt that this is an extremely complex area of the law, where minor word changes can produce major consequences. For example, directing plaintiffs to plead particular facts demonstrating the state of mind of each defendant at the time the alleged violation occurred seems reasonable to defendants. But for plaintiffs, this standard is more like having to clear a pole vault bar than a high hurdle. I am pleased the committee adopted my amendment regarding the pleadings standard, and believe this example demonstrates the need for careful consideration of the effect of seemingly minor word changes in this area. That is why I believe it is of the utmost importance that we proceed cautiously in amending our Nation's securities laws. As the committee report notes: ``S. 240 is intended to encourage plaintiffs' lawyers to pursue valid claims for securities fraud and to encourage defendants to fight abusive claims.'' According to some securities litigators, the legislation as presently construed will make it more difficult to pursue frivolous cases, but not impossible to pursue valid ones, as some have argued during this debate. This legislation should also strengthen the hand of businesses in responding to suits they view as abusive by reducing the incentive they claim the present system imposes upon them for early settlement. If the committee's expectations prove true in practice, then I believe we will have achieved the balance we sought with regard to the initiation of so-called strike suits. My outstanding concerns with this legislation lie at the conclusion of the process, where it is unclear whether we have achieved a balance comparable to that established at the outset. In light of the limitations on joint and several liability and in aiding and abetting in private actions, I question whether the legislation assures that investors who are victims of fraudulent securities actions will be able to recover all of their losses. Certainly, some of the provisions in the bill will help investors recover a greater share of their losses vis-a-vis the attorneys; however, it is uncertain whether they will be able to recover all their losses, as proponents of the bill claim. Here, it would appear the legislation leans toward protecting proportionately liable defendants rather than toward assuring victims of fraud will recover fully their losses. Unfortunately, the amendments offered on the floor to provide such balance did not prevail. A title of the legislation that will directly serve investors' interests by requiring early detection and disclosure of fraud is ``Title III--Auditor Disclosure of Corporate Fraud.'' I am proud to have coauthored this title with Representative Wyden originally as freestanding legislation, S. 630, the Financial Fraud Detection and Disclosure Act of 1993. It places on accountants and company auditors a clear responsibility for early detection and disclosure of illegal actions by management. The provision requires that if an accountant learns of an illegal act that may have a material effect on the company's financial statements, the accountant must inform management, and, if management fails take corrective action, the accountant must inform the board of directors. If the board fails to notify the SEC within 1 day of its notification, and accountant must notify the SEC the following day. Failure to provide this notification will subject the accountant to stiff civil penalties. I believe these clear procedures for early detection and disclosure of fraud by the accountants will serve the interests of both investors and business, and am pleased the committee incorporated this title into the legislation. The securities litigation reform bill we are about to vote upon is likely to make it more difficult to bring frivolous strike suits, but my preference also would have been to include stronger investor recovery provisions in the sections relating to joint and several liability and aiding and abetting. I was disappointed that amendments on these subjects did not prevail. On balance, however, this legislation should lead to the creation of a more favorable climate for investors and businesses. Investors should gain better information about the marketplace, more control over securities litigation should they choose to pursue class action suits, and, with the safeguards intended to weed out frivolous suits, investors should also find a climate more conducive to the fullest prosecution of securities fraud cases. A diminished threat of abusive strike suits should strengthen the ability of businesses to raise capital and to provide investors more information. Taken as a whole, therefore, I will support S. 240.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this month, Vaclav Havel, President of the Czech Republic, spoke at a luncheon in his honor at the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston. President Havel spoke eloquently about President Kennedy's New Frontier and the hopes it inspired in his own country and among peoples throughout the world. He quoted the famous words of President Kennedy's Inaugural Address, ``Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.'' He spoke as well of our failure to live up to those ideals, and of the importance of continuing to strive for them. ``What we can never relinquish is hope,'' he said. Present in the audience at the Kennedy Library to hear these inspiring words were many members of the Masaryk club in Boston, a nonprofit cultural and social organization for Americans of Czech or Slovak ethnic background. President Havel's own personal courage in leading his country to freedom and democracy after the fall of the Berlin Wall made his visit to Boston an especially moving occasion for them. I believe President Havel's eloquent address will be of interest to all my colleagues in the Senate. I ask that it be printed in the Record, along with Senator Kennedy's introduction of President Havel. Remarks of Senator Edward M. Kennedy I want to thank Paul Kirk for that generous introduction. Everyone in the Kennedy family and everyone associated with President Kennedy's Library is proud of Paul and his outstanding leadership as Chairman of the Library Foundation. I also want to thank John Cullinane for his effective role in our Distinguished Foreign Visitors Program. John has been a dear friend to our family for many years, and we are grateful for all he's done for Jack's Library. Today is a special day for the Library, and we are delighted that our guest of honor could be here. The ties that bind the United States and the Czech people go back many years. We're proud to have with us today members of Boston's Masaryk Club, named for the great founder of modern Czechoslovakia. In 1918, at the end of World War I and the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the new independent nation of Czechoslovakia was born. Thomas Masaryk drafted [[Page S 9193]] its Declaration of Independence, and he used America's Declaration of Independence as his model. He adopted the red, white and blue colors of our flag for the Czech flag and he declared the birth of the new nation. At the time, he was in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, seeking support for his native land, a true patriot for his people. Masaryk's Declaration of Independence had a fascinating subsequent history. Masaryk died in 1937, and left the document to his private secretary, who gave it to the Library of Congress for safe keeping, until it could one day be returned to a free Czechoslovakia When I first met President Havel in 1990, the Berlin Wall had been down for several months, and I mentioned to him that it might be time to return the document to Czechoslovakia. But Czechoslovakia's democracy was still very new, and it's future was uncertain. So President Havel thought is best for the document to remain at the Library of Congress a little longer. In 1991, with democracy firmly established, it was a great honor and privilege for all of us in Congress to return that historic document to President Havel and the people of Czechoslovakia. As all of us know, our guest of honor has had an extraordinary and very inspiring career. As a student in the 1950's in Prague, he was attracted to the theater. After completing his compulsory military service, he started work for an avant-garde theater company as a stagehand and electrician. With his talent for writing and his strong sense of the stage, he quickly rose to the position of manuscript reader, and then resident playwright. His rise coincided with the increasing political thaw in his country in the 1960's, and he became well-known for his vivid plays about the dehumanizing and repressive bureaucracy of communist regimes. President Havel's relationship with the Kennedy family goes back to 1968, when he visited the United States in connection with the first American production of one of his most famous plays. Due to restrictions on visitors from Iron Curtain countries at the time, his visa limited him to New York City. His friends in the literary and theater community contacted Senator Robert Kennedy, and, with Bobby's help, President Havel was given permission to visit Washington. But the thaw in Czechoslovakia was only temporary, and the Soviet invasion of 1968 ended the famous Prague Spring. President Havel's works were banned and his passport was confiscated. Repression and harassment followed. In 1975, after his production of ``The Beggar's Opera,'' even the members of his theater audiences became targets of police harassment. But President Havel never wavered. He did not remain silent or flee the country during the repressive Communist rule. He was forced to take menial jobs, but he continued writing, speaking out for human rights, and standing up against the Communist dictatorship. In 1977, he became a leader of Charter 77, a manifesto signed by hundreds of artists and intellectuals protesting the government's refusal to abide by the Helsinki Agreement on Civil and Political Rights. For his continuing courage, he was jailed several different times, and spent five years in prison. In his visit to this country in 1990, President Havel told me that during those dark years in prison, the most important and most sustaining book he had read was ``Profiles in Courage'' by President Kennedy. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, President Havel became the leader of the Civic Forum, an organization of groups opposed to the Communist Government. In November 1989, massive crowds gathered in Wenceslas Square to challenge that government and there was real dangers of violence. President Havel showed great leadership in bringing about a peaceful transition. It was called the Velvet Resolution, and in December he became the first president of the new, free Czechoslovakia. In 1993, when Czechoslovakia peacefully split into two independent nations, he became the first President of the new Czech Republic. During President Havel's earlier visit, we happened to be together at a large dinner party in his honor. As it was ending, I mentioned that one of the most beautiful and moving places to visit in Washington was the Lincoln Memorial at night. He was intrigued, and so we drove over there together. I read out loud the beautiful words inscribed on the walls-- the text of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address and his Second Inaugural Address--and his interpreter translated them for President Havel. It was a deeply moving few moments. He wrote down several of the great phrases, and he turned to me and said, ``I am not able to understand the language, but I can understand the poetry.'' Finally, I want to quote briefly from some of President Havel's own words, describing his life. Here is what he said: ``You do not become a `dissent' just because you decide one day to take up this most unusual career. You are thrown into it by your personal sense of responsibility, combined with a complex set of external circumstances. You are cast out of the existing structures and placed in a position of conflict with them. It begins as an attempt to do your work well, and ends with being branded an enemy of society.'' But that label could not stick. No friend of freedom can be an enemy of society. President Havel's heroic opposition to repression won him many admirers throughout the world, including the great Irish playwright, Samuel Beckett. In 1982, in a unique political action, Beckett dedicated a play to Havel, about the suffering of a martyr in an oppressive country. I know that President Havel regards that as one of the finest tributes he has ever received, and he eminently deserved it. Through many years of hardship and repression, he kept the idea of freedom alive, and he successfully led his people to it. As Robert Kennedy said, ``Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.'' Those words eloquently describe the extraordinary life of our guest of honor and the ripples of hope he has set forth across the world. He is a symbol of the aspirations of peoples everywhere for liberty and an end to oppression. I am honored to introduce him now, a man for all seasons, an inspiring leader for our times, President Havel of the Czech Republic.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, just before we close off on the subject, it is my understanding from the conversations that we had privately on this, but I think I am not violating any of them to say that at this moment the expectancy is that whatever does come to the floor will be truly open to the full legislative process and not prejudged in a way we find with just a series of tabling motions and there is no legislative effort. Am I correct in that also?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the majority leader and the Senator from Louisiana. I think this is a very positive and constructive step, to print the bill as a draft proposal rather than enter it as a piece of legislation at this point. I thank them for doing that. I think the key here--as the majority leader has said, this is definitely one of the most sweeping and important pieces of legislation that we have yet considered--I think it is essential that we have an opportunity to try to guarantee that in the next few days, we come together as a working group to see if the product that will come to the floor as a bill, finally introduced, reflects the maximum amount of changes possible in the good spirit of bipartisan compromise. I note for the majority leader that last year, we passed a cost- benefit definition by a vote of 0 to 8. I was pleased to vote for that. I think we ought to be able to, if we work in the next few days, to approach this bill with that same concept. One of the fears that some Members have at this point is that there is enough layering of judicial involvement here that at a time when we are moving forward--securities reform, product liability reform, tort reform--we are suddenly perhaps creating a whole new avenue of tort possibilities. I will simply ask the majority leader if, in the spirit of printing this, it is also his intention to now engage, in a couple of days, together with the Senator from Louisiana, with the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from Ohio, and others who are interested, in trying to see if we can pare down some of those differences that might help to truly make the final product introduced a bipartisan effort.

Mr. KERRY. I think that is constructive. I thank the majority leader. He has certainly pledged to try to work in good faith to see if we can reach agreements.

Mr. KERRY. I could not agree with the Senator more.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleague from Nevada, Senator Reid, to exempt heavy trucks from the repeal of the national speed limit contained in S. 440. In other words, commercial vehicles will continue to be subject to a national speed limit. Given the havoc that one 18-wheeler or cement truck or other heavy vehicle can cause if its driver loses control or is involved in an accident, I believe this is necessary protection for the motoring public. I will vote for this amendment because it will have a real effect on people's lives. Also, and more importantly, it is enforceable. Should States choose to ignore it, penalties will be imposed. For these same reasons I am unable to support the amendment by my dear friend from New Jersey, Senator Lautenberg, whose courageous leadership on this issue I have long respected and followed. His amendment would maintain a nationwide posted speed limit but give the States complete flexibility in enforcing the limits, without fear of suffering Federal funding penalties for failure to do so, as under current law. To me, this provision would be more shell than substance. Either our country should have a nationwide speed limit on interstates and Federal-aid highways that is enforceable, or we should not. What we definitely should not have is a hortatory nationwide speed limit, without teeth. I fear that will only lead to further disrespect for speed limits in particular and law in general, and we cannot afford such further erosion. I am well aware of the relationship between speed limits and the number and cost of traffic fatalities and injuries to families and to our economy. I certainly believe speed limits make sense in terms of saving lives and the related health and lost productivity costs. Higher speeds also burn more fuel per mile and thereby create more pollution per passenger mile. But speed limits do not make sense if they are not taken seriously because they are not enforced. That is the practical effect of the Lautenberg amendment and why I am reluctantly compelled to oppose the Senator's amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise and will only speak for a very few minutes, but I would like to indicate my support for the cable provisions of S. 652 as it has been brought to the floor by the distinguished chairman and ranking member and the committee, of which I am a member. Amendment No. 1298

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is time controlled at this point?

Mr. KERRY. I want to voice, therefore, my opposition to the Lieberman-Leahy amendment. All of us are concerned about cable rates. We made a major effort a number of years ago to try to regulate that and guarantee that the consumer is going to have the lowest possible price. In my judgment, the fundamental thrust of this bill which has been very carefully tailored to work a balance between many varied very powerful interests, the fundamental effort of this bill is to create competition which will reduce rates across the board. I think all of us have learned that when you have regulation, you inevitably have a skewing of the market which impacts the capacity of people to take risks, people to raise capital, people to invest and diversify. It is my belief that the upper tier versus the lower tier of regulation is sufficiently well tailored in the legislation that we sent out of committee that the interests of consumers are protected. In point of fact, it is my belief that the availability of direct broadcast satellite today and the availability of video dial that is going to come on so rapidly people are going to be dizzy when they begin to see it, that to maintain a regimen of strict upper tier regulation on cable would be to disadvantage cable's capacity to be able to make the kind of investment necessary that this bill envisions, precisely to be able to compete with the regional Bell operating companies and to begin to create the dynamic synergy that we are looking for in the marketplace. So I believe the greatest protection for consumers is, in fact, going to come from competition for video services, and I believe that competition is well structured and maintained in the format that has been brought to the floor. When consumers have a choice and the marketplace is not artificially constrained, then that marketplace is going to provide for rates that are reasonable. I think that anybody who looks at the current intentions of the regional Bell operating companies and long distance operators and those who are going to be moving into the provision of video services will understand that if cable all of a sudden went out and started raising its rates at any tier, it is going to be significantly noncompetitive, it will build resentment among consumers, and they will quickly move to the new provision of services. I can speak to this on a very personal level because I have recently been making choices about where to put what kind of service in my own residence. I was amazed at the number of direct broadcast capacities versus cable that I could make a choice on right now. Second, Mr. President, consumers do not only care about rates, they also care about the quality of the service and they care about the breadth of programming that is available to them. They want both of those as well, and they want that from cable. If cable all of a sudden ceases to do that, they are going to have the opportunity to make another set of choices because of the very things that we are proposing in this legislation. Finally, this bill incorporates a so-called bad actor provision, so that the FCC can step in immediately if a cable company begins to move in a direction which is clearly anticonsumer or out of order with what the rest of the companies in the Nation are doing. So, in my judgment, our objective should not be to strengthen the regulation of rates that cable now is allowed to collect for its upper- tier service. On the contrary, our objective ought to be to maximize competition and to get the Government out of the way of allowing these companies to begin to compete and the price mechanism to be able to provide the maximum amount of consumer benefit. I think anybody who looks at what has happened in the last 5 or 10 years in this field cannot help be amazed at the way in which competition and private-sector initiative has changed the landscape of the provision of these services, and it will do so at such an extraordinary rate over the course of the next few years that Americans will, I think, understand the attributes of what the committee has brought to the floor. So I urge my colleagues to stay with the committee mark and the chairman's and ranking member's efforts to try to maximize competition and to oppose the Lieberman-Leahy amendment. At this time, I also express my admiration for the long efforts of the distinguished chairman and ranking member, and for the efforts of the ranking [[Page S8433]] member when he was chairman, to really structure this. This has been a long road. I think that the balance, which is so difficult to maintain in this, has been maintained throughout, and I think we are going to be able to get a solid piece of legislation to the conference committee where further improvements can be made.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are faced here with a very unfortunate situation. Senator Dole has offered an amendment to address a significant public policy matter raised by S. 652 as reported by the Commerce Committee, and that amendment has become entangled in a dispute that goes to the way the Senate deals with those who do business in areas affected by legislation upon which the Senate acts. I must say that I am distressed by the appearances of what has occurred regarding the interactions of two cable programming providers with the chairman of the Commerce Committee. While I have not been involved at all in--or even knowledgeable about--these interactions, and believe according to what I have been told that there may be more inadvertence and clumsiness in evidence here than anything else, it is unfortunate for all involved that some evidently see this as a case where inappropriate pressure has been brought to bear in such an interaction. Regardless, and without in any way acting as judge and jury and attributing blame, I will say unequivocally that I do not believe that the proper way for elected officials and business executives to interact is for elected officials to threaten businesspeople with injurious legislation if they do not comport their business activities with the policy desires of those elected officials, nor for businesspeople to threaten elected officials with business actions deemed undesirable by the officials if those officials fail to take legislative actions favored by the businesspeople. Further, the way I have always understood the concept of honor, a deal's a deal, and starting with the assumption that honorable elected officials should make only deals that are in the public's interest, both those officials and businesspeople who enter into agreements ought to honor those agreements. Having said these things, when the day is over here, what really counts in my judgment is the public policy that the Senate makes, and the effect it has on our Nation and its people. I think it is important that we keep our eye on the ball here, and by that I mean I think we should cast our votes on this amendment based on the public policy impact of the policies those votes will determine. It is on that basis, rather than with reference to the regrettable dispute that has emerged concerning what has preceded the offering of and voting on this amendment, that I cast my vote on the amendment. Many of the decisions with which this body must grapple are not simple, where two courses, one black and the other white, present themselves and all [[Page S8463]] we have to do is choose the easily discernible right course. Many decisions we make have multiple and varying implications, and we are forced into the position of playing Solomon to mediate disputed interests and needs. Such is the case here, Mr. President. On the one hand none of us to my knowledge wants to act in a way that will deprive persons in rural areas or other areas served by small cable systems of programming that those who live in areas served by large cable systems can enjoy. On the other hand, we should approach extremely seriously any decision that could result in the government imposing controls on the free marketplace, especially a decision that leads to price controls. There have been situations in our history that have warranted such actions, but they are the exception, not the rule. Mr. President, I do not believe that the circumstances of the cable industry warrant imposing what amount to price controls on those who provide programming. Yes, I do believe that those programming companies should deal responsibly with all cable operators who wish to purchase their products. But no, I do not believe that in this industry the Government should prohibit practices of volume discounting or other methods of pricing that are employed in virtually every industry in our Nation, whether it be selling shoes or cabbages or long distance phone service. So, Mr. President, before I had heard anything about the dispute concerning the agreement that did or did not exist between Time-Warner and Viacom and the chairman of the Commerce Committee, I had concluded that I should vote for the Dole amendment. Now that the dispute has surfaced, I continue to believe that the correct public policy is reflected in the Dole amendment, and I will vote for that amendment for that reason.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the United States and, indeed, the world have embarked upon a new technological revolution. Like previous revolutions sparked by technological innovation, this one has the potential to change dramatically our daily lives. It will certainly transform the way we as humans communicate with each other. What we are witnessing is the development of a fully interactive nationwide communications network. It has the potential to bring our Nation and our world enormous good; without appropriate ground rules to assure fair competition, however, this revolution could create giant monopolies. The communications policy framework we create in this legislation will determine whether many voices and views flourish, or few voices dominate our society. The impact of this new age communications revolution on the way we send and receive information, and the way we will view ourselves and the world, is profound. Even more staggering is its potential impact on our economy. We could be seeing the largest market opportunity in history. Some forecasters, including the WEFA Group in Burlington, MA, predict a January 1996 opening of the telecommunications market to full competition would create 3.4 million new jobs, increase GDP by $298 billion, save consumers nearly $550 billion in lower communications rates and increase the average household's annual disposable income by $850 over the next 10 years. As the Communications Workers of America have underscored, delaying free and fair competition means fewer new high-wage, high-skill jobs. New technologies and industries seem to be emerging and merging almost daily. They range from such sectors as entertainment and education to broadcasting, advertising, home shopping and publishing. One key player in this revolution is the Internet--the global computer cooperative with a current subscriber base of approximately 20 million and a 10 to 15 percent monthly growth rate. One billion people are expected to have access to the net by the end of the decade. While some may consider the net to be the revolution, it is only one of many players in the new communications network game. We see examples of this new era almost daily, such as someone driving a car while talking on a cellphone. The pace of change is so rapid that words like ``cellphone'' and ``Internet'' and ``telemessaging'' are not in my office computer's spellcheck system. In the weeks and months ahead, more and more Americans will gain access to video dialtone, choosing their television programs through their telephone service. Likewise, cable franchises will enter the local telephone service market. Residents of Springfield, MA, will be able to watch their State legislators in Boston debate an education bill and instantaneously communicate with their legislators about how to vote on an amendment. We will hear more talk about the players in this new game: content providers, transporters, and technology enablers. As we consider this brave new age of communications, it is clear the current law, the 1934 Communications Act, is a wholly adequate foundation upon which to build a communications system for the 21st century. Moreover, although the courts on occasion properly have intervened to halt monopoly abuse--most notably a little over a decade ago in the telephone industry--we should no longer leave the fundamentals of telecommunications policy to the courts. S. 652, the telecommunications bill reported by the Commerce Committee on March 23, 1995, by a vote of 17-2 and which I am confident will be passed momentarily by the Senate, is not perfect. In some respects, I would have preferred S. 1822, the bill crafted so ably by Senator Hollings and reported by the committee last year. However, the legislation before the Senate now is preferable to the status quo. It will establish fair and balanced ground rules for competition in the communications sector as we enter the next century. It will foster competition, assuring a needed balance among existing competitors and new entrants in this rapidly evolving field. This legislation provides us with a national policy framework to promote the private sector's deployment of new and advanced telecommunications and information technologies and services to all Americans by opening all telecommunications markets to competition. Free and fair competition and maintaining universal service are the twin pillars of this new framework. The bill assures that no competitor, no business and no technology may use its existing market strength to gain a head start on the competition. The legislation requires that a company or group of companies satisfy certain competitive tests before being able to offer a new service or enter a new market. Entry into new services and new areas is contingent upon a demonstration that competition exists in the market in which the business currently competes. But once competition has been achieved, most Federal and State regulation is replaced by consumer demand to regulate the market. These fundamental features of S. 652 are designed to create a level playing field where every player will be able to compete on the basis of price, quality, and service, rather than on the basis of monopoly control of the market. The bill also maintains universal service as a cornerstone of our Nation's communications system. With many new entrants in the communications market, S. 652 assures every player pays his fair share to continue universal service throughout our Nation. As the committee report states: The requirement to contribute to universal service is based on the long history of the public interest, convenience and necessity that is inherent in the privilege granted by the government to use public rights of way or spectrum to provide telecommunications services. The present system, where certain parts of the country indirectly subsidize low-cost service in other areas, will be phased-out. I am also pleased the legislation includes two amendments which I sponsored in committee and one I sponsored on the floor. The two amendments adopted in committee seek to restore a level playing field in two areas: broadcast rates for public, educational and governmental entities--known as PEG access groups; and competition in the pay phone markets. I am disappointed that efforts to refine the payphone amendment were unsuccessful, but I hope that further progress can be made on the subject in conference. As I noted earlier in my statement, there are several provisions in the bill that continue to trouble me. On the floor, I offered and the Senate passed an amendment to ensure low income and rural areas are not bypassed as services. As the bill moves to conference, I will continue to do what I can to make further improvements and defend against efforts to weaken its provisions protecting consumer interests and assuring free and fair competition. Through this legislation and this debate, we have a unique opportunity to craft a telecommunications policy framework for the next century. Today, Mr. President, each of us is in a sense a pioneer heading out on the new information highway. Each of us is not only a witness to, but a participant in, one of the most amazing technological revolutions in history. We, as legislators, bear a special responsibility to assure that competition in this new era is fair and that every American in this and future generations may enjoy the fruits of this competition. This is truly one of the greatest challenges we face as we enter the 21st century. radio spectrum for law enforcement purposes

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to pay tribute to Richard A. Giesser as he leaves office after 10 years as chairman of the Massachusetts Port Authority. Mr. President, I have known Dick Giesser as a friend and adviser for many years. He is one of those all-too-rare individuals who balanced a successful career in business with a deep commitment to public service. I have no doubt that his service to the public will continue long beyond his tenure at the Massachusetts Port Authority. Dick Giesser will be remembered, not only as the longest serving chairman of the port authority, but as a chairman who worked tirelessly to build MassPort's strength while providing safe and efficient service to the public. Under his leadership MassPort put the highest premium on safety, building inclined runway safety ramps at Logan International Airport and developing state-of-the-art fire and rescue facilities. Mr. Giesser was a key architect of the Logan Airport modernization plan, now known as Logan 2000, which will enable Logan Airport to meet the ever-increasing demands of the regional integration into the global economy. In the meantime, Dick Giesser kept faith with communities surrounding Logan Airport, by pioneering noise rules that alleviate the impact of air traffic over East Boston and Winthrop. He was instrumental as well in providing MassPort's support to the adjoining city of Chelsea so that Chelsea could climb back from bankruptcy and regain its fiscal stability. Under Dick Giesser's guidance in MassPort became an important promoter of New England companies in international trade. During his tenure the authority hosted the successful Sail Boston exhibition, which showcased Boston Harbor and Massachusetts to the world, and with his leadership MassPort launched a broad effort to restore marine- related industries to the harbor. Dick Giesser is proud that the Massachusetts Port Authority achieved a AA bond rating for the first time during his tenure. I am sure he is even prouder that he leaves MassPort a stronger agency, capable of meeting the demands of the 21st century without turning its back on its neighbors. Mr. President, once again, I salute Richard Giesser for his service to MassPort, to Massachusetts, and to New England. He exemplifies the importance of public service, but beyond that, he is a friend, and I join with my colleagues and the people of Massachusetts and New England in wishing him well.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to offer a bipartisan amendment, with Senators Lott, Hollings, and Pressler, that will go a long way to make the intentions of the Senate clear in its recognition of the need for every segment of our society to have access to the information super-highway as it begins to weave its way across the Nation. In presenting this amendment, we recognize that there is a fear among many groups and community organizations that the infrastructure of the information super highway will leave out and leave behind those who most need access to it, families in parts of Boston, or in parts of South Dakota, South Carolina, or Mississippi, or other areas of the country. Ironically, in the 1950's the infrastructure debate was about which neighborhoods and which rural areas would be plowed under by bulldozers building the Federal highway system. And, here we are again, in the contemporary equivalent of that same debate. When the Federal highway system was developed, we plowed under the poorer areas of many cities and the poorest land in rural areas. We were willing then to lay roads and build bridges through the backyards of these areas in our good faith efforts to connect States and cities coast to coast. It was the key to commerce and economic opportunity. It was the future. Now, in the 1990's, the information super highway holds the same key to economic opportunity, and it would be unforgivable for us to ignore and avoid the same backyards that we were so willing to plow under when we built the interstates beginning in the 1950's. Without access to the information super highway there are those in our country who will surely be left behind, and we cannot let that happen. Let me make it clear that this is a bipartisan amendment, and that it does not imply that there is anyone in this Chamber or anyone who has participated in the development of this legislation who has intended in any way to allow the redlining of any area. It is equally true that no one is seeking to force telecommunications companies, in their good- faith effort to provide universal service, to lose money by providing advanced telecommunications services to every road and home in the Nation no matter how remote or how impractical. That is not the intent of anyone. But, having said that, the intent of the Senate must be clear: that everyone, especially those less fortunate in our society, those poorer inner-city areas and poorer more remote rural areas struggling to keep up and move on, should have access to the equipment that will hold the keys to success and the tools to compete in the 21st century, even where it may not produce great profit for the provider companies. Fairness, in this case, means access; and, though there is no intent with this amendment to punish telecommunications companies or to force them to lose money by providing a service to an area where it is clear they will lose money in their effort, we also recognize the importance of universal access. [[Page S8360]] The bill, of course, embodies this philosophy in several ways. But nowhere is the principle set forth as straight-forwardly as it should be, and as this amendment does. In summary, this amendment prohibits the exclusion of areas from access to service based on either rural location or income; and it requires the Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules and regulations to prohibit any telecommunications carrier from excluding an area from service based on the income of its residents, or the rural nature of the area; but it does allow the company to make a decision not to offer an advanced telecommunication service if it can demonstrate that there will be insufficient consumer demand for the carrier to earn some return over the long term on its capital investment in providing the service in that area. I think this is a fair amendment. It is fair to the consumer and to the industry. It establishes in law the principle that all our citizens should have access to these telecommunications services and it respects the complexity of providing those services on a universal basis. With this legislation we will move into a new age of information and communication--a promising future that demands our careful consideration. We will either establish an infrastructure that brings every American along, or leaves some behind. We must remember, that access to and knowledge of the information super-highway will define the economic and political power of this democracy. We can no more deny any American access to that power than we can deny them access to a decent education, or to the ballot, or to the voting booth, for in access to them are the fundamental freedoms of this democracy and the individual opportunities that those freedoms provide. Madam President, I urge passage of this amendment. It is fair. It is responsible. It is right. It places the benefit of the doubt where it ought to be. I thank the managers of the bill for their cooperation and assistance. I thank the committee staff. I especially appreciate the cooperation and efforts of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] and his staff, both in committee and now as the bill is considered on the floor. I will just say very quickly that this amendment will empower the Commission to try to guarantee that, as we build an information highway structure, no part of America is left out of that for reasons of discrimination or oversight that no one in the Senate, I think, would embrace. I believe this will help us to have a fair and equitable approach. I appreciate the help of the managers of the bill in arriving at an agreement on this.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be modified with the changes that I now send to the desk, and I do this on behalf of myself, Senator Lott, Senator Hollings, and Senator Pressler. This amendment has been worked out on both sides. I advise the Senate that this modification makes no substantive change in the amendment. It merely places the amendment in a more appropriate place in the bill.

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

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1342 be brought up at this time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. Present, this is the 10th anniversary of the Mary and Harry Zimmerman Memorial Dinner to benefit the Muscular Dystrophy Association. The city of Nashville and the Service Merchandise Co. host this event and I am proud to say that this year the prestigious Harry Zimmerman Award, named for the founder of the company, is being presented to a constituent of mine, Leonard Florence, for his philanthropic efforts and dedication to the cause of the mentally challenged. Mr. Florence has served on the board of trustees of the Cardinal Cushing School and Training Center for exceptional Children of All Faiths since 1967 and has been instrumental in raising over $10 million for the school. The Charlotte and Leonard Florence Dental Clinic and Auditorium at Tufts University Dental School and the Charlotte and Leonard Florence Courtyard in the nursery school at Temple Mishkan Tefila also testify to his generosity. In 1993, Pope John Paul II appointed Mr. Florence a Knight of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great. This is the highest award granted by the Pope and is awarded to persons of conspicuous virtue and notable accomplishment on behalf of society regardless of their religious belief. Leonard Florence is an outstanding citizen who has given freely of his time and talents to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Nation. I congratulate him on this richly deserved award.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Oceans Day is celebrated annually to draw attention to the critical need to cross national and political boundaries to protect and preserve the oceans which are among our vital resources. This year it is celebrated today, June 8, 1995. Oceans, coastal waters, and estuaries cover over 70 percent of the Earth's surface and contain over 90 percent of the world's plants and animals. The world's oceans provide ceaseless beauty and recreational pleasure, but very importantly, they are an essential economic resource for transportation and tourism, a reservoir of biological diversity, and a vital source of food, raw materials, and even new medicines. Yet tragically, our oceans are in peril from pollution, over-use of coastal and marine resources and habitat destruction. As the president of the U.S. chapter of Global Legislators' Organization for a Balanced Environment [GLOBE], a coalition of international legislators dedicated to creating an international environmental agenda, I recently co-chaired a bipartisan conference in Washington, DC on the state of our oceans. The conference brought together leading ocean researchers, advocates, and government officials to examine pressing environmental challenges related to the health of our planet's oceans. This was the first effort in the 104th Congress to seriously examine an environmental issue of international significance in a nonpartisan, nonconfrontational setting, and I believe it was a great success. This year, on the fourth annual Oceans Day, a national conservation collaborative, including the New England Aquarium, is launching a campaign to preserve and restore the populations of large ocean fish such as tuna, sharks, and swordfish, and marlin. Over the past two decades, as demand has increased, the populations of these fish have plummeted due to overfishing, poor management, and the killing of immature fish and nontarget species. This is devastating news for the estimated one billion people, mostly in developing countries, who depend on fish as their sole protein source. Developing sustainable international fisheries as a shared goal of GLOBE and the conservation collaborative because the survival of our world's growing population may depend on success in that endeavor. I wholeheartedly agree with Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution scientist Robert Ballard's assessment that, today, the oceans are more important to our survival than ever before. I hope that Oceans Day can raise the Nation's awareness of our dependence on the health of our world's oceans, the current state of the oceans and the imperative to act rapidly and effectively to ensure their preservation.