John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my colleagues, the distinguished Senators from Rhode Island, Senator Chafee and Senator Pell, and the senior Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, in sponsoring legislation to revise the boundaries of the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor. The bill we are introducing today is identical to legislation that was passed overwhelmingly out of the Senate Energy Committee during the last Congress. I am hopeful that the committee will expeditiously act to support this important component of the National Park System. When the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor was established in 1986, it represented a unique experiment which sought to reconcile resource preservation with economic growth through the cooperation of the community, its businesses, the State government, and the National Park Service. Now, 8 years later, the success of this partnership can be seen in all of the 20 townships and 5 cities that comprise the corridor. From the historic preservation of buildings to the construction of parks, bikeways, and river access, the corridor has effectively blended the beauty of a New England landscape with the preservation of the region's history shaped so indelibly by the Industrial Revolution. This project has been so successful for all involved that five additional cities and towns--two in Massachusetts and three in Rhode Island--have petitioned to be included in the Commission. For those of us who represent States east of the Mississippi and who are concerned with the aesthetic value of the landscapes of our States, this project is particularly exciting. Unlike Western States where large tracts of land are protected by the National Park Service, most Eastern States simply do not have open expanses of land available to develop as national parks in the traditional sense. The Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor is a model for other regions interested in preserving their unique characteristics and their historic resources without disturbing their economic base. Just as the great national parks of the West symbolize the expansiveness and independence that are part of our history, the Blackstone Corridor captures another aspect of our collective heritage--a heritage that is rooted in the communities and industries of the east coast and which helped define the 19th century American experience. This architectural and industrial landscape stands today as a reminder of our past and its contributions to both our spiritual identity and our industrial development. The Blackstone Valley Corridor should serve as a model for the preservation of our unique heritage and for the process by which it has been developed and promoted. This project exemplifies a solid partnership of Federal, State, and local resources working in unison leveraged to produce the highest level of results. it also exemplifies an extraordinary effort in pulling together committed private local volunteers and financial support to enhance the public investment. This is a prototype which could be duplicated in other National Park Service projects throughout the country. While the success of this project is attested to by all involved, we must ensure that the hard work and resources that have contributed to that success are not compromised. By extending the Corridor Commission another 10 years and increasing the operating budget, this bill would allow the Commission the leeway it needs to continue in its unique mission. In addition, the boundaries would be expanded so that the five communities of Massachusetts and Rhode Island which have requested inclusion would be able to participate in the Commission-sponsored activities. I sincerely hope that the corridor's success as both a national park and as an example of a positive public-private partnership in pursuit of conservation objectives will be replicated in other areas of the country. If we are to hold Blackstone Valley up as such a model, however, we first must ensure that it is provided with the resources it needs. Mr. President, for these reasons I look forward to continued positive action on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased once again to join my good friend and colleague senator Kennedy in introducing legislation to establish a whaling national historical park in New Bedford, MA. Our initiative is based upon a special resource study completed by the National Park Service in 1993 which found that the New Bedford area meets the criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. However, this legislation, while similar to a bill we introduced last Congress, is a much scaled-back version. Trying to balance the need for fiscal restraint with the importance of protecting our National heritage, our new bill calls for less than one-fifth of the Federal funding of our original initiative and would require significant matching contributions from other interested parties. The city of New Bedford, tucked by the sea in the southeast corner of Massachusetts, has a rich and diverse history. For decades it was the center of our Nation's whaling industry. And although the whaling industry collapsed by the turn of the last century, New heritage. As a national park, the New Bedford National Historic Landmark District and surrounding area would enhance the National Park System by expanding its maritime history theme to include a focus on our Nation's whaling past. Particularly noteworthy are the historic town center, the waterfront with the National Historic Landmark Schooner Ernestina, and an array of over three dozen historically rehabilitated buildings which combine to provide a cultural resource that reflects the era of whaling. Since 1962, a public/private partnership--initiated by the waterfront historic area league of New Bedford in cooperation with the Bedford Landing Taxpayers Association, the Old Dartmouth Historical Society, private property owners and the city of New Bedford, has already raised $6.4 million, rehabilitated 37 buildings and created over 40 new businesses and 200 new jobs. That is just the kind of local entrepreneurship that we should be supporting. Creating a New Bedford Whaling Park will preserve an important piece of seafarer heritage while simultaneously permitting the public/private partnership to expand and grow. I am hopeful that the Senate will look favorably upon this new, streamlined initiative and I would encourage my colleagues to support this important, historically significant addition to our National Park System.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, several weeks ago I voted ``no'' when this body voted on the proposal to send to the States for ratification an amendment to the Constitution to require a balanced budget. I enumerated the reasons for my opposition. Principal among them was that the constitutional amendment proposal was a fraud; its proponents claimed that it was essential to achieving a balanced Federal budget--a goal to which I fervently subscribe--when, in reality, the amendment would not cut so much as a thin dime from the deficit. In addition, the amendment, had it been approved by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of States, would have created a dangerous situation and a disturbing precedent of sinking not only into standard procedure but into the U.S. Constitution requirements that several key types of Congressional fiscal policy decisions would have to be made by supermajorities. I was persuaded than and remain persuaded now that the Founding Fathers--rightly--would be spinning in their graves in anxiety for our Union if they knew what was then being proposed and debated. But I promised at that time, Mr. President, that I would vote for proposals that would make--or make likely--real savings in the Federal budget, and that did not sink fraudulent or untested methods into the Constitution or trample on the basic tenets of that Constitution. And tonight, Mr. President, the Senate is considering the kind of proposal I promised to support, a proposal that is very different than the Balanced Budget Amendment. The proposal on which we are about to vote--to which some refer loosely as a ``line-item veto'' although it has features quite different than proposals that carried that moniker for many years--is not a fraud. It is real. It provides the ability to the President of the United States to achieve real economies in the federal budget much more easily than such economies can be achieved today. Is this a cure-all? No, of course not, Mr. President. The passage of the line-item veto will not instantaneously and surely erase our nearing-$200-billion deficits. But it is one tool--a new tool with teeth--that any President can use to remove less essential spending from the budget. And it gives strength to such a Presidential decision by requiring a two-thirds vote of both houses to overturn the President's decision and reinstate the spending he vetoed. I believe this tool can and will make a beneficial difference. It applies to tax expenditures as well as to direct spending. But if it proves not to work as advertised--as those of us who vote for it believe it work--we can return to this floor and, by engaging in the Constitutional process of enacting a law, we can repeal it or modify it. And, in any event, the provision on which we vote tonight will disappear automatically--it will sunset--in the year 2000 unless we act to extend it. Mr. President, this is worth a try. It could have--and I hope and trust it will have--a sobering effect on those who seek to lard appropriations bills with special-purpose pork. It can provide--and I hope and trust it will provide--a tool to the President to achieve significant economies in the federal budget by eliminating programs that are not in the national interest, or have outlined their usefulness but not their political patronage. We must take real steps to achieve a balanced budget. This will not be sufficient by itself to achieve that balance--we have much and very difficult work ahead of us to cut the deficit the old fashioned way by cutting programs and expenditures and bringing revenues in line with spending. But this truly is a real step, and I support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last October I received a letter from a Mrs. Myra Hoey of Blandford, MA. Mrs. Hoey detailed a problem that her husband, David, was having with the Trade Adjustment Assistance program which oversees the benefits provided to workers displaced by the North American Free-Trade Agreement. David Hoey was an employee at the Westfield River Paper Co. in Massachusetts. Along with over 100 other employees, David lost his job when the paper company moved to Canada after Congress approved NAFTA. When we passed NAFTA in 1993, we recognized the importance of assisting those working families, like the Hoeys, who might be displaced by this agreement in obtaining gainful employment in another field through the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. For many years the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has been very helpful to the citizens of this Nation by helping them to seize an opportunity for a second chance--for another career or further education. However, Mr. President, occasionally some Federal guidelines fall behind the times and need to be adjusted in order to continue to be effective. Mrs. Hoey and the other workers in Westfield, MA, discovered--the hard way--that the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program has problems that need to be fixed. Workers displaced because of import-related movement of companies are eligible for trade adjustment assistance [TAA]. Workers displaced specifically because of NAFTA related movement are eligible for trade readjustment allowances [TRA]. TAA and TRA provide 52 weeks of unemployment insurance-like payments to these workers and pay for approved training programs to train these workers. Because their employer moved to Canada, the Westfield River Paper Co. employees were eligible for TRA, and a number of them began a retraining program at Springfield Technical Community College during the fall of last year. These workers dedicated themselves to the task of learning new skills so that they could support their families. However, during Christmas employees found out that their benefits were cut off for a full month. This is because the law that created TAA includes a provision that limits TAA and TRA payments during scheduled breaks in training to the first 14 days of these breaks. Consequently, those workers who are out of work and are training for new jobs and who are enrolled in programs with 6-week winter breaks lose a month of benefits, even though they are willingly participating in good faith in a training program and have no other source of income. The missed weeks of benefits are tacked on to the end of the displaced workers' benefit year so that a total of 52 weeks of TRA is still provided. The motivation behind this provision is to encourage workers to chose training programs with shorter breaks so that the workers will be moved into the workforce with greater speed. In addition, workers are implicitly encouraged to select programs that train them quickly because benefits only last 1 year. However, not all workers have a plethora of programs from which to choose. Some are limited to only those programs offered by their local community college. Most colleges and universities have winter breaks longer than what is allowed by TRA, and as a result, benefits are temporarily suspended to those people enrolled in this program at those colleges. Extending to 45 calendar days the period of a break in training through which TAA and TRA benefits can be paid would be helpful to displaced workers. It would be very nearly cost-neutral, because no additional weeks of benefits would be provided, and it would eliminate inequities in the existing system. And at the risk of redundancy, workers would still be encouraged to choose programs with smaller breaks, because the total amount of time that they will receive benefits will still be only a year. Finally, a 45 calendar day training break limitation would encourage workers to engage in summer programs if their period of retraining overlaps summer recess. The bill I am introducing today, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program Improvement Act, provides this increase in the training break during which benefits may continue to be paid. It also would clear up another problem as well, one that touches only on TRA's. I welcome my distinguished senior colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, as an original cosponsor. In order to qualify for a TRA, the law currently requires a displaced worker to enroll in training by the end of the 16th week after his or her initial unemployment compensation benefit period. the rationale for the time limit is that adjustment assistance is generally more effective if adjustment decisions are made relatively early in the unemployment period. However, the current language creates some inequities because the initial benefit period is triggered by initial lay offs and continues to run even if a worker is recalled. For example, if a worker is recalled 4 weeks after an initial layoff, then is laid off a second time after 12 weeks of employment, that worker would not qualify for TRA even if the worker immediately enrolled in training because the 16 weeks of his initial benefit period would have expired. It makes a lot more sense to allow the worker 16 weeks from his or her most recent separation in order to determine whether retraining is needed. This would provide the worker an opportunity to conduct a job search and to explore other options before making an enrollment decision, while at the same time encouraging the person to make a decision at a point early enough to promote effective adjustment. Therefore, this bill takes into account situations involving recalls and would require that in order to qualify for TRA, a worker must enroll in training by the end of the 16th week after his or her most recent separation from the impacted firm. These two changes, one to both TAA and TRA, and one only to TRA, would improve the entire TAA system in small but tangible ways, and at slight additional cost enable these programs more effectively to help the people they were designed to aid. People like David and Myra Hoey, and other workers in Michigan, Tennessee, Washington, Pennsylvania, and around the Nation will get the assistance they need to get back on their feet and into the work force. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Since 1978, right up until the present, there has been a dramatic turnaround where the lower three-fifths of America are going downhill; the fourth quintile has risen marginally, about 5 percent; and the top 20 percent are the people who are really taking home the gravy.

Mr. KERRY. In fact, the lowest 20 percent increased the most.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Massachusetts for his efforts in the course of this day to try to help Americans to focus on the increasing plight of those who labor in this country. It is very interesting. The labor law is long established after years of extraordinary confrontation and some very difficult times. Senator Byrd was on the floor earlier this afternoon talking about some of the background of the labor movement, some of the price that was paid by people in an effort to win certain rights in the workplace. As we think back on the history of this country, there really is not one of us as a school kid, I think, who was not moved by the images as well as the stories of some of the working conditions that grandparents, forebears, and many Members of the U.S. Senate went through. We all remember that there was a time when child labor was exploited. We remember when there was a time when people worked in sweatshops without rights, without breaks, without the ability to even relieve themselves; we remember a time when people would be injured and there would be no compensation, no recourse. They might even lose the job as a consequence of the injury. There would be no payment. There is such a long category or list of the ways in which human labor has been pressed to the limit, in ways that we came to believe were considered un-American. We felt that those things were not the way people ought to live in the United States of America. Indeed, most Members of the Senate have spent time arguing about Mexican workers, arguing about workers in other countries, China, and places where workers are exploited today. Thank God, that is not the situation in the United States. But one of the principal reasons all workers in America have made advances, particularly those today who do not have to join a union, is because a sense of responsibility has entered into the broad marketplace, where most employers now even try to preclude the creation of a union by offering a certain set of benefits--health care, compensation, time off, family leave; a whole set of things that people have come to understand are fair for people to have as they labor. The last and only real tool available to people who are organized in the marketplace to protect their rights is the right to strike. We have a long-established set of laws in the United States are restrained from striking illegally. We all remember what happened with PATCO when the air controllers struck in what was deemed to be an illegal strike. They were fired. They were, in the judgment of many in the United States Senate, properly replaced. Mr. President, there is no rationale that I think can be argued legitimately except a rationale--and it is not legitimate--called union busting, which could justify saying that you would take away from people in a legal strike the right to be able to do it, to strike. There is enormous power in the hands of employers today; enormous power. For those who are organized, in an effort to try to guarantee that they are adequately paid, that they are given the safety protections and other benefits that we have come to believe people ought to have in America, the only leverage they have in the marketplace is their right to band together and say to that employer, ``We don't think we are being treated fairly.'' What is the employer's recourse if that happens? The employer is not without recourse. These people cannot shut down his or her plant, or their plant. They have to leave and leave without pay. They have to leave and interrupt their lives, and start to live on the accumulated savings of a union, or those who contribute to their effort to fight for what they think is right. And the employer is permitted, under the law, to replace those people with temporary workers. So the employer can continue to make profits. The employer can continue to sell goods. There is no disruption, other than the good workers who regularly work and the folks who know each other and the spirit of the plant and all of the good things that come with a good relationship between management and labor; there is none of that. Business is not interrupted, but there can be disruptions, though they do not stop the employer from getting a salary. They do not stop the shareholders from earning money. They do not stop the company from growing or putting out goods. Meanwhile, people who have labored hard, more often than not under tough conditions, are out in the streets marching up and down, extraordinarily disrupted, having a hard time paying for their needs, for their kids, for their mortgage, for a car, for vacation, for clothing--in an effort to do what? To hurt the United States? To do injury? No; to try to make it, to try to get their little piece of the rock. I wish I had with me the statistics. I do not have them. But the statistics on corporate pay increases in America relative to the increase of the average working American are shocking. You know, from the end of World War II, right up until 1979, America grew together, all of us grew. This chart is a stark reminder of that. This is 1950 to 1978. If you divide America up into quintiles, the lowest quintile, the bottom 20 percent, saw their personal income increase 138 percent. The next quintile went up 98 percent. The third quintile, 106 percent. The fourth quintile, 11 percent. And the top 20 percent of Americans went up 99 percent. So three quintiles grew faster than the top 20 percent in the United States. From 1979 until 1993, look at this dramatic inversion. This is the story of the working person in America. The bottom quintile went down 17 percent. The next quintile went down 8 percent. The third quintile went down 3 percent. The fourth quintile went up 5 percent. And, Mr. President, the top 20 percent of Americans gained by 18 percent. That is the growing gap in America from 1979 to 1993. The American worker, the average worker, the person taking home anywhere from $20,000 up to $50,000, has been going down and the person earning over $100,000 is going up. But it is even more dramatic, Mr. President, when you look at what happened to middle-class incomes in that period, for middle-class incomes in America have gone down. The bottom 20 percent went down a 10-percent drop. The middle 20 percent went down 4 percent. Mr. President, the top 1 percent in America went up 105 percent. There is nobody who looks at the demographics of this country who will not tell you that the gap between the working American and those who are making it and who have it is growing, and growing substantially. And here we are talking about whether or not that worker, who is increasingly hard pressed to make ends meet, is going to have the ability, in the labor-management relationship that is already significantly weighted toward management, is going to have the ability to simply hold on to the right of collective bargaining. If you are not allowed to hold on to the right to strike--which, clearly, if you can have permanent replacement workers--you have lost, then you have wiped out the entire gain of the whole concept of collective bargaining. Mr. President, I do not know of anything more fundamental than that. I really do not. Every single company in this country has the right to go out and hire a replacement person temporarily. So this issue is really a very fundamental one, and I think the President has appropriately offered leadership at the national level, following in the tradition of other Presidents who have issued Executive orders in order to implement a particular policy. The record is very clear. Franklin Roosevelt, in 1941, issued an Executive order requiring defense contractors to refrain from racial discrimination. In 1951, after the enactment of the Procurement Act, President Truman issued an Executive order extending that requirement to all Federal contractors. In 1964, President Johnson issued an Executive order prohibiting Federal contractors from discriminating on the basis of age and, at the time, Federal law permitted such discrimination. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 merely directed the President to study the issue. But the President, rightfully, issued the Executive order. In 1969, the Nixon administration expanded the antidiscrimination Executive order to encompass a requirement that all Federal contractors adopt affirmative action programs, something a lot of Americans do not remember, but it was President Nixon who put that program in place. In 1978, President Carter issued an Executive order requiring all Federal contractors to comply with certain guidelines limiting the amount of wage increases. And that order had the effect of limiting what Federal contractors could agree to in collective bargaining, notwithstanding the longstanding Federal policy of encouraging free collective bargaining. In 1992, President Bush issued an Executive order requiring unionized Federal contractors to notify their unionized employees of their right to refuse to pay union dues. The National Labor Relations Act did not require any of that. In the 101st Congress, legislation had been proposed to impose that right, but the legislation had not been passed. But the President's Executive order, President Bush's Executive order, was not subject to judicial challenge. So I believe President Clinton's Executive order is an appropriate one under the law, under the historical precedent, and it is obviously a necessary one, Mr. President. We have learned through the history of strikes that, in fact, a strike that involves permanent replacements actually lasts seven times longer than strikes that do not involve permanent replacements. And they tend to be much more contentious, often changing a limited dispute into a much broader and more contentious kind of struggle. So if one is really interested in good management-labor relations, and in letting the free market work, I might add, Mr. President, it is appropriate to stand by the law as it now stands, which protects the right of workers to collectively bargain. In 1937, John L. Lewis said that, ``The voice of labor insisting upon its rights should not be annoying to the ears of justice nor offensive to the conscience of the American people.'' And that is really what this is about--the ears of justice and the conscience of the American people, Mr. President. I think when you look at the trend-lines of what is happening, it is very clear that, if we continue down this road, probably more Americans will come together and question whether or not it is time to begin-- somehow--to bargain for themselves. And I believe that the struggle for every working American family's right to a decent is to seek a redress of those grievances within the workplace, is a very hard-fought victory that deserves to be preserved in order to preserve the fabric of this country. I do not think it is too much to ask, Mr. President, at a time when the changing economic landscape is throwing American jobs into greater and greater competition in the marketplace, that American management simply grant their fellow Americans--the people who live in their towns and make up their communities--the right to bargain for working conditions without the fear of losing their job. For anyone for whom that is the choice, it is no choice. That is very clear. And all of us who are here for a brief period of time, and we earn so much more, significantly more, than the average American does, we should stop and think about what is it like to make that decision to walk out of a workplace in order to get those better conditions. That is not, for anyone here who has ever talked to somebody on a picket line, an easy choice. It is not a choice without extraordinary hardship in and of itself. To be faced with the prospect of potentially never walking back into a plant, as a consequence of simply standing up to be able to bargain for the better conditions, is not to live up to the American dream. It is certainly not to respect the history of what we have all been through as a country. I think we have a code of conduct between labor and management and a set of rules that create a fair playing field. But that fairness would be stripped away by an effort to suggest that any employer who can simply replace people who try to bargain collectively and exercise their right to strike. I hope, Mr. President, we will remember what this is really all about. It is not as if the corporate entity of this country in the last years has not gained enormously from the measures of the U.S. Congress. I would hope that as we go forward in these next days we will remember those who are increasingly being separated from their potential to touch the American dream, let alone to provide basics for their kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be delighted.

Mr. KERRY. That is correct.

Mr. KERRY. Since 1979; since the dramatic increase--I might add, it is a very interesting coincidence. The year 1979 marks the period where we had a $1 trillion debt in this country. From 1980 to 1993, which represents the greatest period of diminution of earnings, we also have the greatest single period of increase of debt in America. As I know the Senator from Iowa knows, if we separate it out--the interest payments on that debt period from the current budget--not only are we in balance, but we run a surplus. So it is the Reagan-Bush years and Congress, too. I will not dump that one. I am tired of hearing that it is exclusively one or the other. Both were complicitous in a process of unwillingness to be fiscally responsible. But that irresponsibility has become one of the things that is stripping away the capacity of these folks at the bottom to gain the skills necessary in the new marketplace, where information is power, and skills, or the capacity to earn income that has significantly stripped away those folks' access to those skills or to that opportunity.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I may point out to my colleague even further, this is another chart which shows that more working families-- working families in America, we are not talking about the poor that are so quickly bashed here in Washington today who are on welfare; the poor who are not even on welfare and do not qualify and are not working; these are working Americans--Americans who are out there paying their taxes, struggling to make it. And what is happening? In 1975, only about 8.2 or 8.3 percent of Americans who were working families qualified as poor in America. Dramatically, beginning in 1979, that went up to about 11.4 percent. We can see the incredible increase when we went through that very dramatic period of raising the defense spending, cutting the taxes, and increasing the deficit. It started down marginally for 3 years, between 1982 to 1985. Now it is going back up, and it is higher than it was in 1980. It is now at the highest level it has been in years, that is--the number of working Americans who are poor. What is also interesting is back in 1960, 1970, 1980, the minimum wage could lift those folks out of poverty. The minimum wage, 100 percent value of the minimum wage between 1960 and 1980, if a person were earning just the minimum wage they could be lifted out of poverty. But that is no longer the case. The trend line has been straight down since 1980, so that now, in 1995, the minimum wage will only bring a person up to a 70 percent level of the poverty line. What we are witnessing is an increase in the difficulty of those who are working. And the folks who are working in those conditions, by and large, are not the people who do not high-technology company or would have a benefits package that is basically geared to be fair and keep the union from growing. They are the folks who most need the union, and now they are also the folks who are finding that there is an effort to deprive them of the capacity to raise those wages to a level where they can make ends meet. I have been, I will say to my friend from Iowa, I am not someone who has come to the floor and always pleased labor. I voted for GATT, I voted for NAFTA, and I have taken a lot of heat from friends in labor for doing it. I certainly have come to understand that there are in some practices in the marketplace, things that I object to on both sides of the fence. But I cannot understand what it is that is so compelling in America, other than the effort to try to break the movement altogether, that suggests that it is appropriate to deprive people of the right to say that they can bargain collectively for a better effort, for a better wage, particularly given the fact that unlike the past, today's law does not shut the company down. They can bring in workers. They can keep on selling. They can keep on growing. They keep their salaries. They are not giving up anything. So why should not that worker who has bargained--and we saw an example of this in a hospital the other day in New York where nurses went out, trying to get a contract, and some of the nurses refused to go out, and they stayed in the hospital and kept working. The patients were served. They brought in extra people. They made it work. And then they finally settled with those who had gone out and, indeed, the whole spirit of the place changes. People who are part of the fabric of that plant or endeavor come back together, they work together. The best companies I have seen in America are companies where management brings labor into the process, where they are working closely together, where they never have a need for strikes because they are not adversarial. Clearly, it seems to me, this effort to reduce the capacity of people to bargain simply runs counter to all of the experience of the marketplace since the robber baron days and on through the early 1900's up until the present. I do not think we can say labor law today is so stacked against management or, in fact, so balanced toward labor that there is some huge rationale that suggests that it is an appropriate moment for the U.S. Senate to join in gutting the entire history of the movement altogether. I yield the floor. Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday we learned of the attack on three Americans on their way to work at the United States Consulate in Karachi, Pakistan. While they were stopped at a traffic light, gunmen jumped out of a yellow taxi and opened fire with AK-47 assault rifles. Two of the Americans were killed: Jackie van Landingham, a secretary; and Gary Durell, a communications technician. And I know I speak for every Senator when I extend our deepest sympathy to the friends and families of these two Americans who were killed in service to their Nation in a changing and often dangerous world. Mr. President, the third American, a young man from Framingham, MA, Mark McCloy, who worked in the consulate's post office, was injured in the attack and was taken to Agha Khan Hospital. He is now in stable condition. Last evening I spoke with his mother, Muriel McCloy, in Massachusetts, and I have assured her that the United States is doing everything we can to bring those who are responsible for this terrorist act to justice; and I assured her that we would do everything we can to bring her son home safely. Mr. President, this attack reminds us of the dangers that exist in the world and the courage of those who choose to serve their country in spite of those dangers. We cannot underestimate the commitment of foreign service personnel who serve at a time when the post-cold-war world realigns--and the national, regional, religious, and cultural interests of peoples in every country are put to the test of sovereignty and self-determination. The courage and contribution of the men and women of the foreign service in this new world deserve our admiration and our respect. So, Mr. President, though we are saddened by this tragedy, we are also strengthened in our appreciation of the contribution of those who serve. To the thousands of Americans around the world who have suffered the separation from families and home, from friends and loved ones, to embark on a great adventure to promote peace, understanding, and the principles of American foreign policy--in the name of those who have paid the ultimate price--we salute you. Mr. President, for Jackie van Landingham and Gary Durell the adventure came to an end in a distant land, but for those of us at home who reap the benefits of their sacrifice, their memory will never die. the thousands of men and women in the foreign service who ask little from us, but contribute a lot. And let us pray for the speedy recovery of Mark McCloy, and for the friends and families of those who, yesterday, gave their lives in service to their country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I wish to go on record in opposition to the McCain amendment and express my strong support for the Department of Defense Technology Reinvestment Program [TRP] which provides essential public-private funding for dual-use research and development. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the cold war have not brought an end to the need for a strong United States military. We find ourselves facing challenges that are different but no less complex: the spread of nuclear weapons and major regional, ethnic and religious conflicts, to name a few. These new threats increase the need for fast, flexible, mobile forces equipped with the most advanced weapon systems. The Technology Reinvestment Program will allow our troops to defend themselves with the most current, technologically advanced equipment and enhance our ability to respond effectively to any threat our troops may face. The Defense Department's TRP is an innovative program that maximizes the use of taxpayer funds to exploit promising technologies by working cooperatively with the private sector to ensure both our military and commercial sectors seize and exploit these cutting edge technologies. This cooperative endeavor enhances our national security and economic well-being and moves us toward a single, cutting-edge national technology and industrial base. The TRP program enables the Pentagon to exploit the rapid rate of innovation and market-driven efficiencies evident in the commercial industry to meet defense needs. By drawing on commercial technology and capabilities wherever possible--along with the superior systems design and integration skills of U.S. businesses-- the military can do its job more effectively and at a far lower cost to the taxpayer. While I agree with the objective of the McCain amendment to restore funding to the Defense Environmental Restoration Act accounts to provide for environmental cleanups on defense bases, I cannot support the transfer to DERA from the TRP program. The $150 million reduction in the DERA program, while regrettable, is a small portion of the overall DERA program. In addition, DERA is not the only program in the Defense budget that provides environment cleanup funding. On the other hand, the proposed cuts in the McCain amendment coupled with the TRP reductions already contained in the committee-reported Senate rescission bill, would virtually eliminate the TRP program. As we all know, we won the cold war, in no small way because of our technological expertise. We won the cold war because there was a national commitment to win it. We dedicated the resources to the research and development and to the manufacturing that were required to win. We must continue in that tradition and I urge my colleagues to reject the McCain amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to delay for a moment now and let my friend from Utah call them up, or anybody else, if there is an understanding that I can simply return to complete my comments.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would ask the Senator, first of all, if he has any idea as to how long he might be as a matter of process?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator for his answer and for his courtesy. I would like to ask one quick question, if I may. I would assume the Senator would agree with me that if one accepts all of the urgency he has cited with respect to the budget, which I accept, and that since there are more than 60 Senators who have already declared they are going to go vote for this, there is nothing to stop those 60 Senators from simply agreeing that they will not have a filibuster, that they will come to the floor now, today, and that they will propose a balanced budget with 51 votes and deciding up or down any portion of that budget, is there?

Mr. KERRY. So these Senators can make a decision now to resolve this issue of the balanced budget amendment without really going out to the States and taking the time. This could happen today if those same 60 Senators wanted to put their action where their vote is?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my fear that this amendment as it is currently drafted--and I want to emphasize that--begins the process that may permit an erosion of Government's ability to protect certain interests of every American based on a concept of majority rule. It begins to institutionalize a particular judgment, an economic judgment, against a whole set of other judgments which may, at some point in the not too distant future, be the majority view or general interest of the country, but not sufficient to gain 60 votes--but, nevertheless, sufficient to have 51 votes. They could be precluded from then representing those interests. That is, I think, upon reflection, a genuine threat to the notion of the democratic process. I do not question the sincerity or the intention of those who believe that this is a bad idea whose time has come. But, Mr. President, I think we have to wonder whether we are not on a very dangerous path to fundamental changes in how we govern without the due process that our democracy demands. The potential of minority rule on an issue as fundamental as raising revenues, I think, begins a dangerous process of beginning to dissolve whatever is left of America's spirit of community by limiting our ability to make decisions that go beyond city limits and State borders, and that may, in fact, be very unpopular, but we have to, if we are going to serve the Nation, preserve the flexibility and capacity for that kind of unpopular decision to be made. So this debate is not really about specifically spending cuts. It is not about good economic policy. It is about the proliferation into the Constitution itself of a particular philosophy of the moment that almost suggests that the concept of community is lesser than the concept of individual interests. I do not believe that, Mr. President. I think if we are going to maintain the community the Founding Fathers conceived of, then you have to maintain the majoritarian approach. Mr. President, an awful lot of people a lot wiser than me have, frankly, found fault with this amendment based on that perception; that there is a shift in the balance of power between the branches of Government and that that is dangerous. Walter Dellinger, an Assistant Attorney General, testified that: Should the measure be enforced by the judiciary, it would produce an unprecedented restructuring of the balance of power between the branches of government. If it proves unenforceable, it would create quite a different but equally troubling hazard by writing an empty promise into the fundamental charter of our Government. It would breathe cynicism about our Government and diminish respect for the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law. He goes on to say that, The Constitution, as written by the framers, did not contain choices. It rather empowered people to enact the choices, specifically, the kind of choices that I read that we have sworn to make in section 8 of article I. He argues that a balanced budget amendment simply declares that outlays shall not exceed expenditures without ever explaining how this desirable state of affairs is going to come about and without specifying who among the Government officials should be empowered to ensure that the amendment is not violated or, if violated, how the Nation is brought into compliance. The distinguished Harvard law school professor, Archibald Cox, opposes such an amendment for four reasons. First, he said, The amendment would damage the Constitution by introducing matters foreign to its fundamental and traditional purposes. It would undermine confidence in the Constitution by holding out an appearance of guarantees that will surely prove illusory. It would spawn disputes and charges of violation without providing either the means of resolving disputes or remedies for the actual threatened violations, except to bring in the courts. And that exception, he said, amendment risks bringing the courts into a field for which they are totally unequipped by experience. On the politics of this amendment and the ruling of the majority on political issues, Professor Cox said, Deciding whether or when to balance the budget or whether or when to risk a deficit calls for a judgment of policy, the kind of political judgment wisely left by the Founding Fathers to the majoritarian processes of representative government. Mr. President, constitutional scholars have lined up against this amendment and have presented powerful arguments that raise serious questions about the impact of what we are about to do. Another scholar, Kathleen Sullivan, expressed concerns about placing economic theory in the governing document of the Nation. She said, ``I oppose the amendment because I believe it would seriously undermine our established constitutional framework if it were adopted and enforced. Either way,'' she said, ``these constitutional harms would far outweigh the meager benefits the amendment is likely to bring about in advancing its distinguished sponsors' entirely worthy goal of achieving national fiscal discipline.'' She goes on to quote Justice Holmes, saying that: He was right when he warned: ``The Constitution ought not embody a particular economic theory, be it that of Spencer or Keynes.'' And about majority rule, she quotes Madison from Federalist 58, who argued that ``requiring the supermajority to pass ordinary legislation turns democracy on its head.'' Mr. President, the scholar that I was commenting on, Kathleen Sullivan, said about the issue of majority rule that in Federalist 58, Madison himself said that requiring a supermajority to pass ordinary legislation turns democracy on its head, and she jokingly but accurately pointed out the single most predictable consequence of a balanced budget amendment might well be a period of full employment for lawyers. Mr. President, I believe Prof. Charles Fried of Harvard Law School has made one of the most compelling arguments against this amendment as it currently appears before the Senate. He said: Majority rule is the rule that best expresses democracy. It best expresses it for health care, for defense, for the writing of criminal legislation with death penalties and for the passing of budgets--whether in surplus, in balance, or in deficit. To put this all more practically, the balanced budget amendment would just make it that much harder to govern, giving those who want to put obstacles in the way of government new opportunities for obstruction. Professor Fried points out a balanced budget amendment would give ``Any president a far better claim to impound funds than that which was asserted some 20 years ago by President Nixon,'' because the President's warrant would be drawn from, as President Nixon said it was, inherent powers of the Presidency. He could point to the Constitution itself and then he could argue it is his duty to do so. Mr. President, it is not inconsequential if the President of the United States is permitted to impound. We will have created yet another shift in the balance of power, which I believe Members here would want to think twice about, no matter who is in the Presidency or which party controls the White House. Professor Fried says passage of this amendment would inevitably involve the courts in what he calls ``subtle and intricate legal questions, and the litigation that would ensue would be gruesome, intrusive, and not at all edifying.'' He argues, Mr. President, against this amendment and I think everyone knows that Prof. Charles Fried, former solicitor general, is certainly one of the more conservative members of the legal profession. He argues against this amendment as ``Undemocratic and against the spirit of the Constitution.'' He says that when our Constitution withdraws a subject matter from majority rule, as it does in the Bill of Rights and the 14th amendment, it does so because there are things which no government may ever do. It may never abridge freedom of speech, no matter how strong the majority, and therefore it is withdrawn from majority rule. His point is this: In no issue on which it is legitimately in the purview of this Government to rule is anything but a simple majority ever required with respect to policy issues. Mr. President, majority rule ought to be held as the sacred standard of this body. If not, then we embark on a course that could be dangerous, indeed. Dr. Fried said something that gave me pause beyond what I have quoted. In a most dramatic and compelling statement before the committee that summarizes the fundamental flaws of this current draft of the balanced budget amendment, he said something that I hope would give each person some pause no matter what their position on this amendment is. It is a particular perspective about what we are about to do. Professor Fried said: A balanced budget in any form, if it is workable, is a bad idea. The reason is simply that the political judgments underlying the amendment, sound and important though they are, are just that--political judgments--and as such they should not be withdrawn from the vicissitudes of ordinary majoritarian politics that the Constitution establishes as the general rule for our public life as a Nation. I am not entitled to have my bias against Government spending enshrined in the Constitution to frustrate the will of my fellow citizens expressed by a majority of our representatives. I think that is a simple but powerful observation that goes to the heart of what is about to happen here, if this amendment is passed. We will enshrine a national bias against a particular choice of fiscal policy for all time; notwithstanding, however, that the political landscape may change. The Constitution, Mr. President, as we all know, survives beyond each person here. And it ought to remain the same beacon of democracy that it has been for all time. It should not be a hodgepodge of popular gimmicks from one generation to the other. It should not become a means of addressing every difficult problem that we face as a people, and as a Nation. And it certainly should not be used as a cover for the unwillingness of Congress to exercise the will that it has the power to exercise today. So, Mr. President, it is my hope that those few people who may remain undecided will think hard, in the hours ahead, about the weight of the Constitution and the history that we, in the Senate, are responsible for. It is my hope that, in the end, people will choose not to burden the Constitution with this particular moment's idea, but rather to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate prepared to do what we have the power to do today. I would close simply by repeating what I said previously: I am prepared to stay here now--through the next months--with an understanding that we will not have a filibuster, but that we will come up with a budget that sets us on the course to a balanced budget. Let 51 votes decide. If the American people decide that they are unhappy with that judgment, then the next election can be about just that. We should not continue to use the process of delay for a small cluster of people on either side of the fence to frustrate the capacity of this body to make a judgment in the interests of the country, whether that judgment may be correct or incorrect. It is not for a small group to decide now that the judgment cannot be made at all. That frustrates the intent of the framers of the Constitution. Mr. President, we do not have to pass an amendment. We could just get 60 people to sign a letter, each of them saying, ``I am committing, this year, to passing a balanced budget over the next 7 years, 10 years, 15 years and guaranteeing that the expenditure line and the revenue line of this country are turned around and brought together at some point in time.'' It seems to me that all we have to do is read the Constitution of the United States, once again. All we have to do is understand that whatever increased moral authority people believe they will get by passing this amendment, if the courts are not able to make the judgment--if the courts are, God save us all-- but if they are not, this will ultimately hinge on whether we have to enforce section 6 to make this real. That comes down, to an exercise of the very same constitutional power we have today, when each Member swore here to uphold the Constitution, provide for the common defense, and promote the general welfare, and when we swore we would exercise our power common defense and general welfare of the United States. We have the constitutional authority and power today. We lack the will. I hope the American people understand that this gimmick will not provide for the will that each of us should have come with to this institution in the first place. Mr. President, I repeat: I am prepared for the first time to vote for a line-item veto. I am prepared to vote against the tax cuts with the exception of education, which I think is critical, and I am prepared to pose further cuts than are currently on the table. But I am also prepared to find revenue, if it is needed, in an effort to be real about this and avoid the continued gimmickry which frustrates the will of the American people. Mr. President, are we at the moment that we should turn to the amendments?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my motion be called up and I ask unanimous consent that reading of the motion be dispensed with and that the motion be set aside for further deliberation at a later time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, and I will not, I want to say that I would like to also be able to call up one amendment prior to the 3 o'clock deadline.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object for the basis of our side, I do not see anybody here, and I presume that it assumes the 3 o'clock deadline has been passed.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to.