John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair for recognition. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to yield for the purposes of a unanimous-consent request of the Senator from West Virginia, and that I retain rights to the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I yield without losing the right to the floor?

Mr. KERRY. I would be happy to yield to the Senator from West Virginia for the purposes of a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding that is the order, and that in order to have amendments qualified they must be called up by the hour of 3 p.m.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have never known in my 11 years in the Senate a Senator who was present on the floor who wishes to call an amendment up--who under a previous order is permitted to do so--from being prevented from doing so.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I did not know that. But now that I do know that, I ask unanimous consent of the Chair to have those specific amendments called up and be temporarily set aside until such time as I have completed my amendments.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the President.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the President, and I particularly want to pay tribute to the Senator from West Virginia who has done such an extraordinary job helping to pull out this debate. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Arkansas on his comments and observations with respect to this amendment. This has been a lengthy but, I think, a valuable, for the most part, enlightened debate. I congratulate colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their tempered and passionate arguments for and against a balanced budget amendment in the Constitution. We have debated this issue before. As the Senator from Arkansas said, we have voted here previously. He previously voted for it. I have previously voted against an amendment to the Constitution, but I was, I think, one of the original cosponsors and one of the first three Democrats to be supportive of the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings law and have voted for a balanced budget law. As we all know, and as we have heard a number of colleagues recount, the fiscal realities confronting the United States of America are more compelling today than in previous years, and they will be worse in the future unless Congress summons the courage to do something. And so a reexamination of this issue is both important and, I think, appropriate. The question before us is whether or not passing this constitutional amendment, as drafted, shows courage and whether it is the right thing for us to do. Over the past weeks, despite my prior vote, I have gone back to try to reevaluate this issue and to weigh it carefully. I have reexamined my own position on this question and I have reviewed all of the arguments in this debate, closely reading the daily Record, reading and rereading historical documents, analyzing the committee hearings and the report language and carefully assessing the impact of this amendment on Massachusetts and on the country as a whole. As I mentioned in my short colloquy with the distinguished Senator from Tennessee a few minutes ago, we begin this debate, I think most of us, are genuinely in the same place--with a clear understanding of the profound fiscal condition of the Nation. No Senator, I think, will argue that we do not need to make a set of tougher choices than we have ever made before. And no one, I think, will argue that we can just continue to go along as we have been going. The numbers do speak for themselves: The national debt now over $4.9 trillion, three times what it was 11 years ago; gross interest on the national debt soon to be the second-largest expenditure in the entire budget, higher than defense spending; and in 1980 remembering that interest payments on the national debt were $52 billion, this year they will be $235 billion, an increase of over 450 percent and over 100 percent increase when adjusted for inflation. We all now know the cliched but all too real trend lines, that each day we spend $640 million in interest payments, that Federal spending continues to grow because of automatic increases, and that our lack of action does, indeed, threaten generations to come. I am persuaded that with or without an amendment, like it or not, no one of us here can avoid the fiscal confrontation that faces us, except temporarily. Just like the health care issue which is, in fact, part of the current problem, we cannot avoid the issue, or hide from it, or make it disappear, or wish it away. It is going to get worse and worse and an angrier and angrier public is, ultimately, going to hold Congress accountable. The question is whether we can summon the courage under any scenario that addresses our fiscal problems, and do what must be done before the public decides to change the players until they force responsible action. Mr. President, the amendment before us purports to be that summoning of will. I think it is not. Let us be absolutely clear at the outset. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution in order to balance the budget, and everything about this debate has to begin at that point. The truth is--acknowledged in the committee report itself, acknowledged in the course of debate--technically, we do not need this amendment in order to balance the budget. We do not need an amendment to the Constitution. If the more than 60 Senators who are now committed to voting for this amendment would simply agree among themselves that they will not allow a filibuster, that they would vote for cloture and that 51 votes, majority Government that our Founding Fathers established to do the job, would be allowed to vote on each measure, up or down, then, Mr. President, we could balance the budget today. I hope America focuses on that, because that is the centerpiece of this debate. It is the centerpiece of what is at stake in Washington. Not the question of whether or not we need a piece of paper and words that we transfer from our current politics into the Constitution to balance it, we could do it today, and if those 60 Senators who have made this their Holy Grail, their prime objective, would simply say ``we will not filibuster, we will have a balanced budget now, we could do it this year, not make yet another promise to America that we will do something 7 years from now.'' I would agree to that. I would give my solemn pledge to come to the floor, no filibuster. I do not care if it is a program in Massachusetts or a program dear to my heart, I am prepared to let 51 votes decide whether we continue it or cut it, whether we raise the debt or do not, whether we cut taxes, raise taxes, cut a program or increase a program. That is what the Founding Fathers of this country envisioned. Those who call themselves conservatives ought to stop and think hard about what conservation really means and what conservative means with respect to the Constitution that guides our actions in this country. All they have to do is agree: Let 51 votes decide; let the chips fall where they may; we could do it this year. So the question then is properly put to the U.S. Senate: Why are we insisting on tampering with the Constitution to accomplish what, by rights, we could accomplish now, what the American people have a right to expect we would accomplish now if we had the will? this amendment to, No. 1, force discipline on us. I want to quote from the committee report: The primary enforcement mechanism is a three-fifths vote to increase the debt ceiling. The committee argues that an amendment to the Constitution ``forces the Government to live within its means.'' Mr. President, how does it force the Government to live within its means? In a long colloquy between Senator Johnston and Senator Hatch, Senator Hatch acknowledged--in fact, insisted--there will not be court cases; this will not go to court, because the court will not have jurisdiction; the court will not take jurisdiction; it will not be justiciable; there will not be standing; there will not be ripeness, a whole set of reasons. So, Mr. President, if the Senator from Utah is correct that you cannot go to court, then how does this force the Government to live within its means? If it does not go to court, then the only enforcer is the Senate and the House, and the only enforcement will be the very willpower that is absent today. So here we are with a new modern catch- 22, only it is a catch-22 that may be written into the Constitution of the United States of America. Now, Mr. President, we tried to clarify the court issue. We tried to actually say what the Senator from Utah was promising us. He said it will not go to court. We said if you are so certain that it will not go to court, why not write that in--that it will not go to court? But, oh, no, there was a block vote preventing us from doing that because, in fact, there are those on the other side who want it to go to court, and who want the ambiguity. So we are in effect being asked to write ambiguity into the Constitution of the United States without an understanding of what the risks are to the Nation in doing so. Now, that is not the only catch-22. One of the most significant catch-22's is in section 6, and I would like to read from the balanced budget constitutional amendment committee report where it says that: Congress shall enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation which may rely on estimates of outlays and receipts. This provision gives Congress an appropriate degree of flexibility in fashioning necessary implementing legislation. For example, Congress could use estimates of receipts or outlays at the beginning of the fiscal year to determine whether the balanced budget requirement of section 1 would be satisfied, so long as the estimates were reasonable and made in good faith. Most importantly, Mr. President, it says this: In addition, Congress could decide that a deficit caused by a temporary self-correcting drop in receipts or increase in outlays during the fiscal year would not violate the article. Get that. We pass the amendment to the Constitution. We say to America we are going to have a balanced budget. But right here in the descriptions, in the fine print, there is language that says Congress could decide that a deficit caused by a temporary self-correcting drop in receipts or increases would not violate the article. So we come right back in and exercise the very same flexibility that we exercise today, and that has to be measured against their statement that this amendment to the Constitution ``forces the Government to live within its means.'' How, if you are having that flexibility and promoting that flexibility, does this force the Government to live within its means? Moreover, the very same paragraph says: Similarly, Congress could state that very small or negligible deviations from a balanced budget would not represent a violation of section 1. That is the most extraordinary thing of all to me, Mr. President. We all know the games that get played around here. Who is going to define ``very small''? Who is going to define ``negligible''? Why, we are, of course. And when we define it we will in effect have decided that we can in fact not have a balanced budget. It is right here in the report. America is being promised a balanced budget, but in the very same language that America is being promised a balanced budget is one of those small, little sections that says Congress is able to define that if you do not have a balanced budget it does not equal a balanced budget problem. I tell you, Joseph Heller would be proud of this. This is catch-22 at its best, Mr. President. Now, that is the first reason the proponents say we have to pass it-- because this is going to force the Congress to ``live within its means.'' But we have learned, No. 1, they will not say whether or not the courts can enforce it, so we do not know if it is really enforceable or left to the will of Congress. And they have written in some very specific means by which they can escape from responsibility for truly balancing it. Second, proponents of this amendment say that by this particular amendment as drafted--because I think you could draft an amendment that is better than this, but as this amendment is drafted they say that by constitutionalizing the fiscal principle of a balanced budget a new moral power will overcome the Members of Congress. That is not my language. That is their language. They talk about a new moral authority. Let me quote the committee: The committee expects fidelity to the Constitution as does the American public. Both the President and Members of Congress swear an oath to uphold the Constitution including any amendments thereto. Honoring this pledge requires respecting the provisions of the proposed amendment. The report goes on to say: Flagrant disregard of the proposed amendment's clear and simple provisions would constitute nothing less than a betrayal of the public trust. In their campaigns for reelection, elected officials who flout their responsibilities under this amendment will find the process will provide the ultimate enforcement mechanism. Mr. President, that is incredible. The first reason that they have given for passing this is that it is going to force something that in effect we have shown cannot really be forced. The second reason is they say it is going to give a new moral authority to the principle that every single one of them has already adopted. Now, Mr. President, needless to say, there is an extraordinary statement of rather pathetic admission in this glorification of new moral authority. Here we are, elected officials, already sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Let me read to you from the Constitution of the United States, the preamble: We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish * * * Mr. President, we, each of us, already raised our hands, every single one of us already came to this body swearing to uphold this Constitution, which already requires us to look out for the general welfare of the country, and to preserve it for posterity. We have a solemn duty and a responsibility today to deal with this fiscal crisis, not pass some piece of paper that goes on for 7 years into the future. We have that responsibility today under the Constitution. And all that is lacking is the courage of those 60 who say this holy grail is worth pursuing to come to the floor and agree not to filibuster, and let 51 votes uphold the responsibility that we have sworn to uphold. Now, Mr. President, turning to section 8 of article I: The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common defence and general Welfare of the United States. There, it is, Mr. President, section 8 of the Constitution which every Member of this body has already sworn to uphold provides the moral authority to balance the budget today, requires us to exercise that moral authority today. We should be ashamed of the notion that we have to come here with a whole new process that upsets the very balance of power that was created by the Founding Fathers of this country. A true conservative would think twice about voting in a way that changes the whole power structure and walks away from the personal responsibility already sworn to, to uphold the Constitution, to provide for the general welfare, to pay the debts and provide for posterity. So I find this rather amazing, that those who already, at the highest level of Government, have a major responsibility to carry out the public trust, who are already on record in town meeting after town meeting, before promise after campaign promise. They came to Washington to balance the budget and they have not done it. They have the power today, and they have not exercised it. Here we are, suggesting to the American people that new words on a piece of paper, enshrining a different concept, will give them the moral force to accomplish what nothing but the lack of personal moral commitment prevents them from doing today, right now. It seems to me there ought to be as much concern about flouting our current responsibility as there is some prospective future responsibility. Again, I say I am prepared to say no filibuster. I will vote for cloture on any motion on any issue whatever with respect to the budget, providing we agree we are going to try to move toward this goal. I am prepared to come to the floor and say I will vote for the line-item veto and I will vote against the tax cuts. How you can run around offering America $700 billion of tax cuts when you are in this kind of trouble, with the exception of what you may need to help the work force--balance it against education and reeducation--is beyond me. What if you were to accept the notion that there is a legitimacy to the argument of having some new moral force? What if you were to accept the notion that perhaps it is worthwhile to have a constitutional statement that says we ought to adopt a fiscal balanced budget approach? I think that is possible as a principle. But it seems to me if you are going to do that, you ought to deal with the Constitution as a true conservative in a neutral and fair manner. It seems to me we have an equal responsibility to amend the Constitution in a way that it does not do more injury than good, in a way that does not ignore the fundamental relationships of this democracy, and in a way that does not create the potential for serious economic problems while never even guaranteeing the goal that it sets out to achieve. Tragically, this amendment as it is currently drafted is neither fair nor neutral. We have tried on our side to adjust that issue of fairness by dealing with the issue of the courts, by dealing with the question of capital budget and other issues. At each step, we have been rebuffed. I believe this amendment in its current form goes well beyond fiscal responsibility and, most importantly, it constitutionalizes the politics of the moment. It takes the immediate political agenda of the current majority and constitutionalizes it in a way that may ultimately do violence to the genius of the Constitution and to our form of democracy. When the veneer is stripped from this amendment before us, I think you can see a deeply troubling political motive that goes beyond just trying to balance the budget, which by definition could not be the only reason for this amendment since the proponents know that they already have the authority to just balance the budget. They are in the majority: Balance it. No, I think this amendment goes further than just balancing the budget. It goes to the heart of the democratic process and it is one of the reasons why, in its current form, I have the most difficulty with this amendment, because it carries with it a fundamental shift in the decisionmaking in America. It is, as I said, an attempt to constitutionalize a particular ideology, which is not illegitimate. I am not contesting the legitimacy of the belief system. What I am contesting is whether or not you want to take that current, ephemeral majority view and constitutionalize it, which truly runs counter to the notion of being conservative. It shields a momentary ideological party view from the fundamental democratic concept of majority rule. How does it do that? The proponents of this amendment are insisting that both Houses of Congress find 60 percent of their membership, not just 60 percent of those present and voting, but 60 percent of their membership; a fixed number must be found in order to do something, in this case to run a deficit, to raise revenues in any way, whether through user fees or taxes. And, in doing that, everything I read, everything I studied and looked at, says to me: alarm bell, red light. Stop. Take a look at this. Make a sounder judgment for history and for the future. That would usurp the power of a majority to disagree. Those who are using this amendment as a weapon in an ideological war do not want the votes of those who think differently from them to count as much as theirs. It is that simple. If you believe that you may ever reach a different conclusion than they have, they want to make certain that your vote does not count equally by requiring that you have to find a supermajority to fight back. We are here as passing custodians of an extraordinary trust. These desks do not belong to us. These chairs do not. This room does not. We are the custodians of the Constitution, an extraordinary document, unparalleled in the course of human events. That document is based on the notion of majority rule, and to take that now, and suggest that you are going to require a supermajority to stop some particular action that is a mere choice of policy--fiscal policy, at that--is to suggest that those votes do not count as much for something that a current view suggests is popular. It is fundamentally undemocratic. It is fundamentally revolutionary in the worst sense of the word. That is not all that I think is wrong, though that ought to be enough, conceivably, in this current draft. The amendment also allows us to cast a vote that permits us to escape the current responsibility and only require that this take place 7 years from now. Which means 7 years from now, you have to find the $322 billion projected as the deficit for 2002, but you do not have to do anything for 7 years. I have been listening to my friends come to the floor and tally up each day the amount of interest we are losing just in this debate. That is really good television for the purposes of the debate, but what happens to America when this debate is over? What happens next year? The year after? The year after? They are not saying they have to do it now. They only have to do it 7 years from now. This truly becomes the politician's freedom from responsibility act. We were not elected to escape our responsibilities or pass legislative initiatives that further obfuscate the tough choices. If we attempt to escape through the passage of this amendment, then I think we fail ourselves and we fail the Framers of the Constitution and, most important, we fail the American people. I think it is a cruel hoax to suggest to the American people--as the Contract With America does--you may disagree about the full amount of tax cuts, but no one will disagree that there are big tax cuts in that contract, whether it is $700 billion or $500 billion. It is enough to still make it stick in your throat, when you add that to the already gargantuan task of finding $1.23 trillion between now and the year 2002. Mr. President, I think the U.S. Senate really owes the American people a higher level of honesty and we ought to have the courage to tell the truth and to do what is right. One of those truths was with respect to Social Security. I do not disagree that Social Security needs fixing. I think Social Security is legitimately on the table with respect to how you adequately fund it into the next century, because more and more Americans are going to be drawing down on it, with fewer and fewer paying in. There is a legitimate question of whether or not we can afford to pay out huge sums beyond what people put in. But that is a question for the Social Security trust fund, not for balancing the budget. And the promise made to the American people was that this is a fund for retirement. It is insurance against poverty, and it should not be used as an instrument to balance the budget. It is obviously upsetting that this has not been made as clear as I think it ought to be. I do not see how you can tell senior citizens that you are acting in good faith with respect to this effort if you are not willing to make that separation clear--up front. Mr. President, for obvious reasons this is not an easy choice for anybody--I think for many people at least. There is a current fervor in the country and anger that says we want to balance the budget; solve our fiscal problems; cure it. So there is a quick instinct to want to do what is popular and to say, hey, maybe we ought to pass the balanced budget amendment, throw caution to the wind, and do it. significant responsibility than reacting to current popular perception. We swore to do that when we each stood at the other side of the well, raised our hands, and swore to this body and to family and friends and Nation that we would uphold the Constitution. I think that requirement requires a more sober reflection about what this really does. What does the fine print really do? What is the impact of the courts? We are a Nation that already regurgitates over court involvement in our lives. The city of Boston came to understand that only too well in the process of court-ordered busing. There is also a national sentiment against the courts making decisions for people who want to make them for themselves. This amendment is not going to improve that situation for Americans, if Congress fails to show the will that it could show today. And if the arguments of the proponents are so true then indeed you have to show that you are able to find some new willpower. What is the difference in finding the willpower from putting it in the Constitution versus finding the willpower from the oath we have already sworn? Mr. President, there is this sense of popular rush to judgment here. But I suggest that we owe the country and the Constitution a slower, more deliberate process in keeping with the notion that this is the deliberative body that is meant to be the check and balance. I have decided to vote against this particular constitutional amendment, as it is drafted today, principally because I have come to believe that it is an ill-advised attempt to memorialize in the fundamental governing document of this democracy one political party's agenda in such a way as to jeopardize majority rule, and change in a radical way what the Founding Fathers set out to do. I will do so because this draft leaves a dangerous ambiguity existing about court involvement because it establishes an unrealistic and probably dangerous straitjacket on economic choices to respond to bumps and downturns in the economy, and because it sets the American people up for more political gimmickry and does so by putting the Constitution at risk. Mr. President, as I said, there is a deep concern that we all should feel when we are about to exercise this most significant responsibility. Our Constitution--and I am sure my colleagues feel this--is indeed a magnificent document. I am not suggesting that my colleague on the other side holds a different view of it. I do not believe that. But we can have different interpretations as to what impact our actions will have on it. I believe that the brilliance, the profound simplicity, and the timeless articulation of fundamental principles like majority rule are worth keeping. I know that the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, believes that we cannot alter the fundamental governing document of this Nation without deep deliberation and compelling reason, and I agree with that. Any amending of the Constitution should be done in the same spirit as the writing of the Constitution itself--with an overriding commitment to fairness, and to what is in the best interest of the Nation. The Federalist Papers speak to us very clearly of that responsibility. I just do not believe that that fairness governs the current draft of this constitutional amendment. Indeed, I think that in its current draft, because of the problems I have cited, it represents a kind of Trojan horse, because it has one set of rules for treatment of the deficit--the three-fifths majority--and another set of rules for the current majority of the Congress, who may wish to reduce or shift sources of revenue. One value of votes for revenue, one value of votes for deficit. That is not what the framers of the Constitution intended. I know my colleagues are coming to the floor and saying how frustrating it is and we want to balance this budget, but we are not able to do this, so we have to do that. In fact, Mr. President, we do not have to. All we have to do is get the 60-plus Senators to come and agree, no filibuster, 51 votes. You do not have to change the balance of 60 and 51. The reason you do that is that there is something else that is trying to be achieved, and it is not the fairness, and it is not the neutrality for the process that the Constitution demands. Mr. President, we obviously cannot amend the Constitution simply because it is fashionable, and we certainly should not do it as a symbolic gesture to score political points or to further personal ideology. We ought to do it because there is an overwhelming national interest that cannot be reached without doing it. There is no expert that I have read in all of these documents of this debate who can say with a certainty that this amendment will result in a balanced budget. In fact, most experts say it will not result in a balanced budget, and that it may be unenforceable, which results in an extraordinary court battle that could tip the balance of power in this democracy. Who here can imagine judges deciding whether you build a particular defense program, or whether you move a bridge or a highway? Who here wants judges deciding what portion of the budget to cut and how to raise taxes? There is no expert who has suggested that there will not be some court cases. There is no expert who has said with any certainty that there is a compelling national interest that can be defined and met by the current draft of this amendment. But the most compelling arguments against this amendment, as drafted, Mr. President, come from the real experts, the framers of the Constitution who, were they here on this floor, I am confident would vote against this amendment because it tampers with the Constitution's most fundamental principle of majority rule, and the preservation of our ability to act in the national interest in an emergency. Mr. President, if fairness were the real consideration here, and if you absolutely felt you had to have a balanced budget amendment that creates this new moral power, then you could do so by passing an amendment that requires 51 votes with an exception, obviously, for state of war or national emergency, economic and national disaster, and you do not have to do it, clearly, in a way that leaves open the court issue. But, you can close the court issue by simply taking them out of the process within the context of the implementing legislation. Mr. President, I believe, if you read the Federalist Papers, they make it about as clear as it could be. In Federalist 22, Hamilton called a quorum of more than a majority ``poison for a deliberative assembly.'' That is what is being created here--what Hamilton called poison. He pointedly notes: The necessity of unanimity in public bodies, or of something approaching towards it, has been founded upon a supposition that it would contribute to security. But its real operation is to embarrass the administration, to destroy the energy of Government, and to substitute the pleasure, caprice, or artifices of an insignificant, turbulent, or corrupt junto to the regular deliberations and decisions of a respectable majority. That is about as clear as you can get. He goes on to say: The public business must in some way or other go forward. If a pertinacious minority, respecting the best mode of conducting it, the majority in order to something may be done must conform to the views of the minority; and thus the sense of the smaller number will overrule that of the greater and give a tone to the national proceedings. Hamilton was worried that the requirement of more than a majority would allow the minority to rule simply by not showing up. When you require the fixed number of a House, not the fixed number of those present and voting, you have given to the minority the capacity not even to participate, and by not participating, they win. That is a tyranny of the minority. That is not majority rule. Hamilton said, ``Its situation must always savor of weakness, sometimes border on anarchy.'' Mr. President, Hamilton feared that requiring more than a majority would effectively paralyze the Government's ability to act and could result in anarchy. Harsh and outrageous as that possibility may sound, those who threaten majority rule could threaten the power of the Federal Government by limiting its ability to act at all. All of us know how frustrating it can be to bring some issue to the floor, how long it takes, and how easy it is for one or two Members to frustrate the process. If you majoritarian rule, you are already shifting the power in a remarkable way. A minority could limit the Government's ability to raise revenue, however unpopular that might be, or its ability to expend funds, and therefore limit what Hamilton called in Federalist 33 ``The most important of the authorities of the Federal Government.'' This amendment as drafted, Mr. President, is political dogma disguised as economic policy. It is the continuation of the ongoing effort to demonize certain national interests by demonizing those who promote any kind of national program to protect the American concept of community.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have probably another 10 or so minutes. I know there is a 3 o'clock deadline. I do not want to delay any of my colleagues. If I could, I will ask unanimous consent that I could finish my comments, and I would be happy to yield for the purpose of permitting an amendment to be called up, if I can retain my rights to the floor thereafter.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, no gun works without a bullet. Yet for no good reason, Congress in the early 1980's repealed laws that regulate ammunition. And while a background check is required to stop felons from purchasing guns, no such background check is required to stop them from buying ammunition for the guns they may already have. In the meantime, bullets are getting meaner and more deadly. Law enforcement officers know all too well of the danger they face each and every time a gun is pointed at them. Advances in technology only promise to make matters worse. When a large percentage of gun-related deaths involve handguns, and a large percentage of gun related deaths is accidental, it is insane for the public to fear the creation of new, more destructive bullets. The fact is 157 police officers and State troopers were killed in this country last year. Five lost their lives in my home State of Massachusetts. And more than 200 people die from the accidental use of handguns every year. In 1992 alone, 233 accidental deaths occurred because of handguns. This included 6 babies, 36 kids under the age of 14, and 8 senior citizens, 2 of whom were over the age of 80. In light of these sad and disturbing facts, there is no good reason to have ever more dangerous bullets on the market. And there is every good reason to keep off our streets and out of our homes bullets that supply handguns with the destructive power of assault weapons. That is why the Ammunition Safety Act of 1995 does two things: it reestablishes reasonable regulations for the sale of handgun ammunition, and it outlaws all exceedingly destructive handgun ammunition--whether or not such ammo has been invented yet--by expanding and updating the ban on armor-piercing handgun ammunition. This bill would provide a weapon for law enforcement to crack down on crime and would make ordinary people safer from handgun violence and accidental shootings. The bill accomplishes these goals in three steps. First, the bill reinstates and strengthens ammunition control language that Congress repealed during the Reagan era. It would require dealers of handgun ammunition to be licensed by the Federal Government. It would restrict interstate sale and transportation of handgun ammunition to licensed dealers. And it would double the maximum penalties for sale to and for possession of handgun ammunition by felons and persons under age 21. Second, the bill would apply Brady bill provisions to handgun ammunition. To prevent the sale of handgun ammunition to felons, once the nationwide, instantaneous background check the Brady bill created is in place, every purchaser of ammunition will have to pass a background check before ammunition could be sold to him or her. These regulations would be a vital tool to law enforcement in investigating crime, and would provide equity to a system that currently monitors and restricts the flow of guns, but--inexplicably--not of ammunition. Third, the bill expands the definition of illegal armor-piercing handgun ammunition to include any new conceivable kind of armor- piercing bullet. The bill establishes a new method to accomplish this goal. To date, no law has been able to effectively ban all armor-piercing bullets. You can't ban what you can't define because vague laws are constitutionally void--and definitions to date have failed to cover all armor-piercing bullets. All that existing law does is ban bullets based on the materials of which they are made--consequently, bullets made of hard metals are illegal--in the hope that this definition will blanket most armor-piercing bullets. But the existing composition-based definition fails to prevent the sale of certain bullets that pierce armor--like large lead bullets that aren't intended for handguns but can be used in them--or the invention of new armor-piercing bullets-- for example, a plastic bullet hard enough to pierce armor. This bill calls on the Treasury Department to define armor-piercing bullets not by what they are but by what they are not. Fulfilling this new responsibility would entail four steps. First, within 1 year, the Treasury Department is charged with determining a standard test to ascertain the destructive capacity of any and all bullets. This will probably result in something along the lines of a rating system equal to the width times the depth of the hole a projectile bores in a block of gelatin when it is shot with no extra powder from a standard Colt .45 at a distance of 10 feet. Second, utilizing this destructive rating test, the Treasury Department would then determine a rating threshold which would be the rating of the least destructive bullet to pierce today's standard body armor. Third, all manufacturers of bullets for sale in the United States would be Department in testing and determining the destructive rating of every existing bullet available on the market. Fourth, this bill would make it illegal to manufacture, sell, import, use, or possess any bullet--existing or newly invented--that has a destructive rating equal to or higher than the armor-piercing threshold. This would be in addition to the existing composition-based definition. This bill contains reasonable exemptions. Those bullets exclusively manufactured for law enforcement would be exempt; so would be those bullets designed for sporting purposes that Congress specifically exempts by law; and those bullets that are proven by their manufacturer at its expense to have a destructive rating below the armor-piercing threshold. By setting the legal standard at the armor-piercing threshold, all armor-piercing bullets would be illegal. And there is an additional advantage to setting a legal threshold in this fashion: The threshold would ban more than armor-piercing bullets. It would ban any new, sick, perverse bullet that has yet to be invented that explodes on impact, that turns to shrapnel, that does things today's technology cannot yet fathom, or that by any other means is exceptionally destructive. Setting a legal standard this way draws a hard and fast line between those bullets currently on the market and future bullets that do more damage than we can imagine today. This bills says that America is satisfied that the bullets of today are dangerous enough, and America will tolerate no greater likelihood of accidental death as a result of new bullets. This bill recognizes the fact that regulating only weapons is naive. Among other reasons, guns last centuries, but ammunition has a shelf- life of not much more than 20 years. Felons who want to kill will always be able to find guns, but have to come out of the woodwork to purchase ammunition. When they do, this bill will be there to stop them. Of course, felons can make bullets at home, but it isn't easy, it isn't cheap, and it isn't safe. Mr. President, I recognize that there is a limit to what the Government can do to stop gun violence and accidental death. But today, the Government is shirking its responsibility. This bill is a vital first step toward ensuring that the Government does what is necessary to save lives. The law enforcement community and the public will never again have to react to advertisements like the one for the infamous Rhino bullet. This add states: The Rhino inflicts a wound of 8 inches in diameter. Each of these fragments becomes lethal shrapnel and is hurled into vital organs, lungs, circulatory system components, the heart and other tissues. The wound channel is catastrophic. * * * Death is nearly instantaneous. If this bill is enacted, opportunistic manufacturers like the man who created the Rhino will have nothing to gain from advertising the dramatic innovations of their bullets. If an advertisement claims that a new bullet is unusually destructive, the public will know that the advertisement is either an outright lie or that the product is illegal. Either way, the public will know in advance that no such bullet will ever hit the street, and the public will have no cause for hysteria. When this bill becomes law, no new bullets that are more dangerous than those of today will make it to market. When this bill becomes law, those bullets that are on the market won't end up in the wrong hands. This bill is a solid step toward returning sanity and safety to our Nation's streets and household. The Government has no greater responsibility than to work toward this goal. I welcome the support of colleagues who share my concerns, as many do. I urge them to join me in sponsoring this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the legislation appear in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of this commonsense amendment to the balanced budget proposal. No matter what our beliefs are on the wisdom of this amendment, we should at least ensure America's right to know who will be hurt and what will be cut if we pass a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It would seem to me, Mr. President, that notwithstanding any Senator's position on this legislation, this amendment--which simply requires that we be honest about the impact of our actions--is little to ask in the face of such a monumental constitutional change. Frankly, I cannot imagine that we would consider passing any piece of legislation, regardless of the subject, without doing our best to understand as much as possible about its potential impact on the general public. Is that not, in fact, our fundamental responsibility as legislators? Is that not what we were sent here to do? Is that not what we just asked in the legislation this body passed not more than a week ago that required the CBO to advise us of the impact on State and local governments of the unfunded mandates bill? I have to say, Mr. President, I am somewhat confused. The same Senators who insisted on knowing the nature and the exact impact of that legislation are now arguing that we do not need to know the financial impact of our actions. Are we not supposed to know what we are doing here? I ask you, are we not obligated--as a body--``to protect the people,'' as Madison said in his Journal of the Federal Convention ``against the transient impressions into which they themselves might be led.'' And here we are, legislating by impressions. That is exactly what we are doing if we do not show the people what this means. We do not need to know the contents. We do not need to know how it works or what it does, we just need to buy it, we are told. Mr. President, is this the modern day equivalent of the ``traveling salvation show'' complete with snake oil and magic elixirs that cure all of our ills? We do not need to know what is in it. Trust us. It works. Have we lost our perspective here? Have we lost all touch with reality? I wonder if anyone in this Chamber can go home to his or her constituents and say, ``Ladies and gentlemen who elected me, I have absolutely no idea what this legislation will do. However, I've been assured that everything will be fine. Trust me, and thank you for your continued support.'' And yet here we are suggesting that we pass this constitutional amendment and worry about the details later. By God, let us be honest with our constituents. If achieving a balanced budget by 2002--with half of the budget protected from cuts--will cost my State, annually, $1.9 billion in Federal grants, then let us be honest about it. If a balanced budget will cost Massachusetts $248 million in highway trust fund grants, $459 million in lost funding for education, job training, the environment, and housing, then let us be honest about it. If--over 7 years--it will cost over $1 billion in Medicaid, and almost $2\1/2\ billion in Medicare, then let us be honest. Mr. President, what are we afraid of? If we support it, let us talk about it. If we believe in it, let us defend it. But I implore you, let us be honest about the impact of what we do here. It is our job. It is our obligation. It is our only mandate from the people who sent us here. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to honor the memory of a woman and a mother from Massachusetts. Not just any woman, not just any mother, but a most extraordinary example of both. Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy's long life will be remembered by a grateful Nation as a legacy of parental strength and family leadership. To those of us who remember images of her campaigning with her sons, or mourning in quiet dignity, she shall always reflect a moment in time when we believed in ourselves, in our families, in our faith, and in our ability to survive. She lived through incredible victories and wrenching tragedies, but through it all her resolve, her deep religious devotion, and her profound belief in family and community, gave this Nation a vision of who we could be. To my generation she defined faith, courage, and dignity, and once said, ``A mother should be a bulwark of strength.'' And in her courageous response to sorrow, and in her reflections on how good life can be, and on how lucky we are, she was that bulwark of strength for all of us. During good times and bad times that touched the hearts and lives of every American, we looked to her for guidance and for a mother's perspective, and she gave us both. She set a standard of parental leadership that will live long after those of us lucky enough to have shared God's Earth with her are gone. I remember being invited to Hyannis, and meeting Rose Kennedy for the first time. And I remember being moved by her intensity and concern, by a warmth and graciousness that recalled a proud time when our belief in ourselves demanded that we accept what God has bestowed upon us, and that we bare the burden and share the bounty. Rose Kennedy was an extraordinary woman and mother. Now it is time we pay tribute to her for what she sacrificed for service to the community. Mr. President, I know I speak for every member of this institution and for the people of Massachusetts in offering my deepest and most sincere condolences to my friend and colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, and the entire Kennedy family. I say to Senator Kennedy and to his family that we will always remember Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy, and that we are a better people for having had her among us for over a century. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the eulogy delivered by the senior Senator from Massachusetts be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join my friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, in introducing 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 U.N. 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 before us 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; second, implementation of the Convention on Future Multilateral Cooperation in the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries; third, improved research and international cooperation with respect to Atlantic bluefin tuna and other valuable highly migratory species; fourth, reimbursement of United States fishermen for illegal transit fees charged by the Canadian Government; fifth, a ban on U.S. fishing activities in the central Sea of Okotsk; sixth, a prohibition on U.S. participation in international agreements which undermine the U.N. moratorium on large-scale driftnet fishing, and seventh, approval of the governing international fishing agreement between the United States and the Republic of Estonia. The measures of this bill will make a substantial contribution to U.S. leadership in the conservation and management of international fisheries. I encourage my colleagues to join with me to support its passage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I believe, if I am correct, the Gorton amendment is on national historical standards; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. I simply point out to my colleagues that this is an amendment to a Republican amendment, and the Republican amendment which consumed most of yesterday afternoon has nothing to do with this legislation. I happen to support the Republican amendment. So the Republicans have exercised their right of coming to the floor in order to attach to this legislation something they thought was important and, in fairness, that right ought to also lie, as it always has through the centuries of the Senate, with the other side. So I think it is inappropriate at this point, only several days into this, to be complaining about the fact that there are some amendments that some deem to be relevant but not germane, or germane but not relevant, whichever the case may be. The Senator also asked somebody to look them in the eye and say they want to pass this legislation and they are not delaying it. I will look them in the eye if they are here and I will tell them I want to pass this legislation and I am not delaying. I will say it again: I want to pass this legislation and I am not delaying. It seems to me that we ought to be able to work out among Members an agreement on a number of amendments that are relevant to this and, hopefully, proceed forward in a way that is intelligent. Let me emphasize ``intelligent.'' I remember the majority leader coming to the floor many times last year saying to America ``We are not delaying. We are just trying to save America from bad legislation.'' Or, ``We are trying to save the country from something that goes too far.'' Or, ``We are trying to save the country from legislation that we think can be improved.'' That is what we are doing, not saving it from a bad idea but making a good idea better. We support the notion that we need to reevaluate unfunded mandates. Mr. President, we should not in the process of passing a bill on unfunded mandates do so in an irresponsible way that does not allow for fixing what we all know in the legislative process is the capacity of one word misconstrued or one word misplaced, to have an unintended consequence. Moreover, I can remember in 1986 when we passed the Tax Act here. I went to Senator Russell Long because we were concerned about a particular component of that bill with respect to real estate. He said, ``Don't worry about that. We will pass that now and come back and fix it.'' Being new to the Senate, I believed him. I would not believe that statement today. The fact is that we did not come back and fix it. Over the years, the results produced, I [[Page S1165]] think, terrible unintended consequences of devaluing certain amounts of property in America with unintended consequences to banks, to the savings and loans, and to a host of economic interests in this country. Now, we ought to do a better job, Mr. President, of evaluating the cost of programs. It is irresponsible for the Senate to pass a program mandating actions by States or local communities of which we do not understand the implications. I think the days have long passed by which Americans have come to conclude that they want to have a better sense of weighing the value of a particular environmental concern or a particular health concern against the totality of cost or the rate at which that cost might be imposed on them. I also ask my colleagues to remember back to the 1960's and 1970's when a river in Ohio used to catch fire regularly: the Cuyahoga River. In response to rivers that caught fire and toxic and hazardous waste dumps which we knew were causing cancer and killing people in this country, we passed a set of standards. A mandate is not just a mandate. It is not just a mandate to spend some money. It is our collective view as a Nation of something to which we want to aspire. It is our view of a goal or a standard by which we want to live. So when President Bush came to the Congress and joined the fight to protect the environment and said we ought to have clean air, he was expressing the hope and desire of millions of Americans to be able to breathe air that is clean. The result was Congress passed a notion of how we wanted to live, of a standard. Subsequently, in the 1980's, particularly under President Reagan, there was an enormous shift in the revenue versus expenditure relationship. We all remember the promises made back in the early 1980's--if we cut taxes and raise defense spending we were going to churn up the engine of this economy and we were going to ultimately have increased revenues. Well, we took the debt of the Nation from $1 trillion to over $4 trillion in the span of a decade. It was that diminution of the Federal partnership throughout the 1980's that has begun to create this new rush to reevaluate Federal mandates. What happened during the Reagan era was the Federal Government left the mandate in place because it expressed the will of the people, but it took the money away. That is what has brought Members here. A perpetual process of the reduction of funding to States and local communities, leaving in place a series of mandates and, indeed, I might add, adding some mandates. Most of the mandates that we are currently operating under were put it place in the 1960's and 1970's--not the 1980's--with the primary exception being the Clean Air Act. But I do not think most Americans have decided they do not want to breathe clean air. I do not think most Americans have decided that they want their kids living next to toxic waste dumps, and they are ready to have them get cancer and die. I do not think most Americans have decided that they are prepared to have a whole erasing of the standards of safety on our roads, on the standard of safety that we know have saved lives. I do not think that is what they are saying. Now, if this bill, unintentionally-- and I insist, unintentionally-- if this bill not as a matter of purpose but as a matter of unintended consequence, is going to have the impact of diminishing the capacity of people in this country to have those higher standards of health or safety, then I think people would think twice. If this bill unintentionally creates a disadvantage to the private sector, I think people would say ``Wait a minute, is that really what we are meaning to do here?'' Now, I am 100 percent in support of our requirement that we evaluate the cost of Federal requirements to both the public and private sector. We ought to evaluate how we spend our money. In that evaluation, Mr. President, we also ought to consider the full measure of the relationship between the Federal Government and the States and localities. For instance, we allow the States and localities to benefit by virtue of a $66 billion a year deduction on State and local government income taxes and other tax deduction. In effect, part of the Federal-State partnership and relationship is our payment of 40 percent of higher income people's State and local taxes. Is that taken into account in this mandate bill? Is that taken into account in the requirement of the commission to evaluate Federal mandates? The answer is ``no.'' That is an unfunded mandate, in essence, on a whole lot of low-income people that do not deduct, because that is a benefit that only goes to people who deduct. If you itemize your taxes and you deduct you get the benefit. So, in effect, the Federal Government is paying for 40 percent of the local and State taxes of upper-income people as a consequence of our allowing that deduction. There are a whole set of tax expenditures, similarly, in the Federal-State relationship for which we are assuming the burden. Now, I say this as background to this particular amendment that the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Michigan are joining together and bringing to the floor, because it underscores the complexity of this relationship. It underscores the fact that if we take one piece of this broad mosaic of our economy and we suddenly rip it off, we may have a whole set of consequences that impact other people. And we are just respectfully suggesting, in an amendment that is really very narrow in scope, in a very limited amendment, we are suggesting that there is a way for the Senate to legislate intelligently and avoid an unintended consequence. Now, what is that unintended consequence? Just very quickly to go back to my colleague from Connecticut and his excellent description. Mr. President, we have a very broad definition in here of a Federal mandate. The definition we have in this legislation covers all State and local activities including activities where there is a governmental role, such as in administering any appropriate program but also where there are activities that are not of a governmental nature. So we are saying in this bill, any Federal program mandated that covers an activity where the activity or entity acts in a governmental way or in non-governmental functions we are going to apply this bill. If you do that, Mr. President, you are covering activities where the Government entities are acting as employers and where they compete in the marketplace with the private sector. An example of that would be a landfill or an incinerator. You could have a local government-owned landfill or incinerator operated in competition with a private landfill or incinerator operator. As it is currently written, this bill will set up a different relationship between the public entity and the private sector. It will exempt the public entity from having to live up to a Federal mandate, but it will not exempt the private entity from that same mandate. So we will continue to say, as I think the American people want to, that with respect to the environment or health or public transportation safety or workplace safety, we will continue to say, ``You, the public entity, are exempt unless we have decided to pay 100 percent, and, you, the private entity can continue to operate under the burden of the Federal mandate,'' which means that the public entity has a lower cost of doing business, which means we have advantaged them in the private sector. I received a letter from BFI, which is Browning-Ferris Industries. We all know them. I know they have written a letter to my colleagues subsequently retracting some of what they said in this letter, but not retracting the substance, which is what I want to emphasize here. What they said to me was: Dear Senator Kerry: * * * Without legislative language along the lines of the enclosed, unfunded mandates legislation--even if it is prospective only-- And I underline. could have the effect of subjecting the private sector to a regulatory (and cost) burden that the public sector would not face absent Federal funding. The enclosed language would merely have the effect of assuring a level playing field between the public and private sectors in those instances where there is some form of competition between the two (hospitals, transit, higher education, waste management, et cetera). This letter was dated December 22. On January 11, they wrote to Senator [[Page S1166]] Kempthorne--I think it is probably in response to concern about the other--and they said: We expressed our views at a time when one of our concerns was that unfunded mandates legislation could have a retroactive effect. It is evident that S. 1 has a prospective effect only, which we understand was your intent all along. After reviewing the legislation that will be considered on the floor and after discussions with your office, we recognize that among your objectives for S. 1 is creation of a favorable climate for the private sector. In fact, S. 1 seeks creatively to address the concern in some quarters that unfunded mandates legislation could disadvantage the private sector where public-private competition takes place. Moreover, after many years of experience in working with you--most of them prior to your tenure in the Senate--BFI is convinced that your dedication to free enterprise is unsurpassed. They go on to say: * * * we are pleased to strongly support S. 1. I am not holding them out as not supporting it, but they nowhere in their second letter--nowhere--address the concern they express in their first letter. They simply say that ``we understand that it is not going to be retroactive.'' In their first letter, they said, ``even if it is prospective only.'' The fact is that by taking it out of retroactive, you are not diminishing the capacity for future unfunded mandate requirements to create this unlevel playing field, Mr. President. What would happen is, you would have these public entities that engage in the hiring of employees and compete with the private sector, they would be exempt from obeying worker protection laws, like the Parental and Medical Leave Act; they would be exempt from the environmental health and safety requirements which the rest of the private sector has to comply with; publicly owned incinerators would be exempt from air pollution standards; school buses, as my colleague from Connecticut has pointed out, would be exempt from safety standards; cars owned by local government could be exempt from emission standards; State-owned liquor stores could be exempt from standards of product that apply to privately owned stores; publicly owned hospitals could be exempt from requirements for the proper disposal of medical waste. I do not think anybody in the Senate wants to do that. I really do not believe that my colleagues think that is good policy or that that is what this bill is supposed to do. I know my colleague is going to stand up and he is going to point to language added to S. 1 calling for committee report language. And in his language in the report he says that the evaluation has to include a description of the activities taken by the competition to avoid any adverse impact on the private sector of the competitive balance between public and private sector. However, that is the report. That is not substantive. It is not a requirement nor is it an exemption. What that language does is, in effect, acknowledge that this is a problem. It says that you have to go out and make this evaluation, which means you are going to have this imbalance in the marketplace, you are going to have to go make the evaluation, you are going to have a point of order lie with respect to it, as my colleague has said, then you have to come back and jump through hoops of points of order and try to pass something to redress what any free enterprise capitalist should not want to have happen in the first place. In effect, if you pass this bill as is, it is a kind of socialism because what you are doing is advantaging the Government against the private sector. You are, in effect, voting to say we are willing to take an unfunded mandate away from the public entity and we are going to leave it on the private entity. That does not make sense to this Senator. And for the life of me, I cannot understand why so many folks on the other side of the fence are so sanguine about this reality of the imbalance. I asked them to look at the language. I asked them to measure it. This is not an exaggeration. I do not think the Senator from Connecticut has anything remotely resembling a reputation that is any less than diligent. He is one of the strongest advocates in the U.S. Senate for the interests of competition and business and the private sector. I think if you take a hard look at this, one has to be concerned about this relationship. So we are here, respectfully suggesting to our colleagues that the goal of making the judgment about expense is absolutely worthy, but to undo the partnership completely in a way that imbalances this relationship between public and private is not worthy of this legislation and it is not what we ought to be seeking to do in the U.S. Senate. I assure my colleagues, if this happens, we are going to be back here revisiting the quagmire of competition or of imbalanced competition that we will have created as a consequence of that. Again, I say, I applaud the work the Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn and others have done in trying to create a responsible climate of evaluation of costs before we impose them. But there is a responsibility in the Federal partnership to try to be fair. I think that, regrettably, we will not have met that standard unless we try to adopt some change within this legislation. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will just ask my colleagues if it might make sense if one of us kept going while they confer. This Senator has no problem with a time agreement. If they want to discuss the time agreement, that will be fine, but I think we might use the time advisedly. Mr. President, I first want to all start by congratulating the Senator from Connecticut and also the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, for their efforts on this bill. I think the Senator from Connecticut has done an outstanding job of laying out in great detail the problem here, and I am not going to repeat all that he has said. I might say, though, I saw that the distinguished majority leader was on the floor a moment ago. I heard him prior to that say to the Senate, chastising us for not proceeding faster on this bill, that the amendments that have been brought have not been relevant to this bill. I might say to the distinguished majority leader and to the other side that the pending amendment before the Senate right now, I believe, is the Gorton amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask if the Senator will just yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. The absence of a quorum was suggested.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am honored to join my colleague from California in proposing this important piece of legislation expressing the outrage of this body over abortion clinic violence. No matter what our views on abortion might be, I am sure that every decent American mourns the senseless murders that have been committed at abortion clinics. On the first day of this session, I rose to discuss the broad implications of abortion clinic violence. I would like to reiterate some of the points that I made at that time. I am deeply saddened that my State has joined others that have seen the horror and felt the pain of this senseless violence. The Friday morning before New Years Eve, at 10 a.m., Shannon Lowney, a 25 year old activist working as a receptionist at a clinic in Brookline, MA, looked up and smiled at a man who had just walked into her office. It was John Salvi. He pulled a collapsible Ruger rifle from his bag--aimed it at Shannon--and fired at point blank range. He killed Shannon and wounded three others. And now, in mourning her death, we ask ourselves: Who was Shannon Lowney and what did her life show us? Her friends called her ``Shanny'' and she was a caring, committed young woman who represents the best of her generation. She cared about people. She tutored Spanish-speaking children in Cambridge, helped poor villagers in Ecuador, worked with abused children in Maine, and last week she finished her application to Boston University for a masters in social work. She was one of those rare people who confronted injustice and acted on her deep and abiding belief that we are all in this together--we are community and each of us must accept our personal responsibility within that community. The irony and the tragedy is that--to John Salvi--Shannon's life meant nothing--the good and decent life of someone who truly cared about others was taken in the name of ``life''. Mr. President, no matter what our views on abortion might be, I am sure that every decent American mourns the senseless murder of Shannon Lowney and is touched by the loss of someone so young and so committed to working with others. Contrast Shannon's life and her motives with the life and motives of a wounded five others and then left Planned Parenthood and walked a few blocks to the Preterm Health Services Clinic. He asked Lee Ann Nicols, a 38-year-old receptionist engaged to be married this year, whether this was the preterm clinic. She said yes and he shot her from less than one yard away--killing her on the spot. He then said, ``in the name of the mother of God'', aimed at Richard Seron, a lawyer working as a security guard, and shot him once in each arm. He shot one other person, 29-year-old June Sauer once in the pelvis and once in the back, and then he left. Five people injured--two people killed. And now we must ask: Who is John Salvi and what does his life show us? On Christmas Eve Salvi delivered a sermon about the Catholic Church and its failure to see the true meaning of Christ. But what was his motivation for cold-blooded murder? Paul Hill, the Minister currently on Florida's Death Row, gives us some insight into John Salvi's motivations. Hill gave us a chilling reason for killing a doctor and his assistant in Pensacola. He said that ``the bible teaches us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. ``Therefore, killing a man who is about to kill an unborn child constitutes killing in self-defense.'' To Paul Hill the murder was a justifiable homicide. Mr. President, this syllogism lies at the heart of one of the most corrosive dangers the world faces today. There are religious teachings that offer justifiable reasons for killing, but mainstream religions have always promoted tolerance over intolerance, and the only people who use religion to justify cold- blooded murder are religious fanatics. But what happened in Brookline--what happened to Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nicols--and the tragedy of their deaths--tells us that we can no longer dismiss these fringe elements of our society. We can no longer let the good people fall victim to intolerance and fanaticism. Yes, John Salvi read from the same Bible that Shannon and Lee Ann did. The teachings and the words were the same, but their lives could not have been more different. It is our task to remember that commitment and dedication can be manifest in kindness and concern or they can take the hideous form of fanaticism and hatred that motivated John Salvi to play God. Mr. President. It is incumbent on all of us as a society to understand the danger that can be wrought by those who would interpret religious teachings as a crusade against others and a justification for cold-blooded murder. It is our task to understand that we live in dangerous times, and that the easy availability of weapons in this society to people like John Salvi and Paul Hill has increased that danger, and increased the threat to those who chose to show their commitment and their faith by helping others build a better life for themselves and for their families. I believe it is time for both sides in the abortion issue to find a way to express their views without increasing the level of the rhetoric or the level of violence. It is our task to sit down and talk to each other, and I commend my friend and constituent, Cardinal Bernard Law, of the Archdiocese of Boston, for his efforts to bring both sides together. He has shown himself to be an individual of courage in this regard. Even though he is strongly pro-life, he has called for an end to anti-abortion protests in Boston. And he is trying to bring everyone together in an unprecedented series of negotiations. Cardinal Law is a leader whose tolerance, and deep faith serves as an example to all of us. What we achieve together can send a loud and clear message--to those who would use their beliefs as justification for murder--that, though we may not agree, we are still one people bound together not only by our faith and our commitments to our beliefs, but by the expression of our common interests through tolerance for our differences and a mutual respect and understanding for each other. But, make no mistake. The wrong response to these shootings would be to turn clinics into armed fortresses on the fringes of our medical delivery system, further from those who choose to have the procedure. Yes, we must protect workers, medical personnel, and patients, but we cannot allow an accepted medical procedure to be limited by the blind intolerance of a fanatical fringe. So, Mr. President, if this constitutionally protected right is to be preserved, and if we are to truly pay tribute to women like Shannon Lowney, then we need to protect the safety of those who seek the services of these clinics. When those shots rang out in Brookline, John Salvi took something very precious from us. He took our freedom to believe and to express our beliefs as we choose. He took our freedom to act on our beliefs without fear of violence. We can never let that happen. Mr. President, perhaps the most eloquent tribute to Shannon Lowney came from the president of the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts. Nicki Nichols Gamble said, ``Shannon gave her life so that others would be able to have better lives. She was an essential link in the chain of women helping women. We will miss her desperately, and we will remember her, and we will see to it that her death will not be in vain.'' Today and for many days to come we will mourn the deaths of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nicols. The people of my state are shocked and outraged at this senseless act of violence that took them from us, and I know that I speak for every member of the Senate in extending our deepest condolences to their families and friends and to all the victims of this tragedy. The lesson, Mr. President, is ``tolerance'' and it is a lesson we would do well to learn; and--if we do not learn it--we will have dishonored the memory of two young women from Massachusetts who lost their lives to intolerance in the name of God. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Massachusetts, in introducing two bills to allow the vessels Shamrock V and Endeavour to be employed in coastwise trade of the United States. These boats have a small passenger capacity, normally 8 to 12 passengers on overnight trips and up to 30 passengers on day trips, and their owner intends to operate a charter business based out of Boston Harbor. The purpose of these bills is to waive 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 built in the United States if all major components of its hull and superstructure are fabricated in the United States, and the vessel is assembled entirely in the United States. These boats were originally built in foreign shipyards in the 1930's, but since the mid-1980's they have been owned and operated by American citizens, repaired in American shipyards, and maintained with American products. The owner bought these boats due to their historic significance. These vessels are the only two remaining boats from a class of enormous sailing yachts built during the 1930's to compete for the America's Cup. As such, they are a very significant part of American maritime and yachting history. To better showcase these historic vessels the owner now wants to start a charter boat operation based out of Boston offering voyages of various durations to various destinations. After reviewing the facts in the cases of the Shamrock V and the Endeavour, I do not believe that these waivers would 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 these two cases warrant waivers to permit the Shamrock V and the Endeavour to engage in coastwise trade. I hope and trust the Senate will agree and will speedily approve the bills being introduced today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, that a complete copy of the bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand the state of parliamentary procedure is that there is an amendment currently pending.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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