John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer an amendment that, at first blush, some might try to argue does not belong on this bill because it addresses one facet of campaign finance reform. But I want to make it very clear at the outset that this amendment is not broad- based campaign finance reform. It is a small reform which we adopted by voice vote previously last year. I think it was offered in similar form by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain. I believe that, indeed, it is appropriate to join it with the issue of congressional coverage, and that it therefore is fully appropriate to offer it as an amendment to this bill. This amendment asks us to behave like other Americans. In the spirit of reform that has been so embraced in the House of Representatives, in the spirit of reform that is at the center of the efforts of this Congress to try to respond to the mandate of the election, and in the spirit of reform that I believe is at the center of all of the dynamics of our politics today, this amendment is relevant and germane and important. What this amendment seeks to do, simply, is to make it illegal to convert campaign funds to personal use. This is not campaign finance reform as much as it is an effort by the Congress to say we are going to behave like everybody else in this country, and everybody else in this country does not have the ability to go out and ask people to donate money for one purpose and then turn around and decide, with enormous discretion, to spend that money for entirely different purposes--and, in fact, for personal gain and benefit. The amendment is based on the proposed rules addressing the same subject published by the Federal Election Commission late in 1994. It would close the loopholes by prohibiting personal use of campaign funds and by setting forth a clear definition of what constitutes personal use. And most important, Mr. President, it prohibits a candidate from drawing a salary from his or her own campaign funds. I believe that this amendment is synchronized with the effort to lift this institution out of the morass of partisanship and out of the morass of disdain with which most Americans have viewed in recent years. While I have been deeply involved in campaign finance reform and it has been one of my principal areas of legislative focus since I was elected to this body--indeed, it was the subject of one of the very first pieces of legislation that I introduced, and I will continue the fight for comprehensive campaign finance reform this year--I emphasize this amendment is not bringing a broad-based campaign finance reform proposal. I understand from Majority Leader Dole that there will be a time for that later in the year, though it cannot come soon enough as far as this Senator is concerned. But I do believe this is an opportunity for us to make an important change in the way campaign funds are used while simultaneously making a statement fully in keeping with the spirit of congressional coverage legislation. The bottom line of that legislation is an effort to say to Americans: Congress ought to live by the same standards as all other Americans. And this seeks to say that our management of campaign funds given to us for the specific purpose of campaigning should entail an explicit responsibility to spend that money for campaign purposes--that it should not be taken to buy Super Bowl tickets, or to pay for trips to places that many hard-working Americans would like to go but cannot afford to go, under the guise of some kind of campaign effort. It certainly should not be used by a candidate to pay himself or herself a salary, particularly a salary that might be in excess of what that candidate was able to earn in the marketplace or was previously earning. Each of those activities is outside the norm of life for the great majority of Americans. They are activities that are available to people in Congress only because they are in Congress and are raising large amounts of money necessary for campaigns under our current system of campaign finance. When the Federal Election Commission was considering the new rules on this subject which it proposed late in 1994, the Sacramento Bee newspaper said: The FEC should approve them. Most important, for the vast majority of those in Congress who are honest public servants who are at times genuinely confused about the proper use of campaign funds, the rules provide some guidance. That is what we seek to do here, provide some guidance in order to help Members to live up to reasonable standards. The Chicago Tribune said: Despite a 15-year-old Federal law that bars candidates from converting campaign funds to personal use, the Federal Election Commission has never offered rules on what personal use is. And the New York Times said: The law should be revised. This amendment does exactly that. It ends the confusion, it defines personal use, and it revises the law. I hope my colleagues will support it. I want to make it clear that there is an awful lot more to do than just this on campaign finance reform. We passed major legislation last year. Regretfully it got caught up in House politics and later in Senate politics and the American people were cheated of the most far- reaching and important campaign finance reform in the history of this country. This is vital legislation because I think every American understands that underneath the term limits movement, underneath the disdain for Congress, underneath the sense of a lack of access to the U.S. Congress, underneath the feeling of powerlessness and the great gulf between elected officials and the people, there is one source that is to blame more than any other. It is money--the money used for campaigning for elective office. Money is moving and dictating and governing the process of American politics, and most Americans understand that. The reason so many people find it hard to run for office and keep our democracy vibrant is because of the extraordinary cost. So we have a great task ahead of us in order to pass a comprehensive campaign finance reform law and in order to avoid the increasing perception of the American people that no matter what they do, Congress seems wedded to interests that have money and somehow divorces itself from the real concerns and aspirations of the American people. So I hope this small measure--which is aimed at helping us to live under the same rules as do the rest of Americans--will be accepted by the majority and it will not need a rollcall vote. But in the event that it does, I, at this time, ask for the yeas and nays, which I certainly will be happy to vitiate should it be accepted.

Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleague and others on the other side what it is of which they are afraid. I ask my colleague if my Republican friends are really in favor of reform. There is no strict formula by which we determine what legislation will be brought before the U.S. Senate, in what order it will be brought, or when it will be brought. Everyone serving in this body knows that. Where is it ordained that there is a better moment 5 months from now than right now to say to the American people we are not going to spend campaign money for personal use? Of what are those Members who oppose this amendment afraid? If they support it, why not attach it to this vehicle and make the statement of reform to the American people now? Why wait 5 months? My colleague just stood up and said that the purpose of this legislation is to show Americans that we are prepared to live like they do. Why would you not want to attach to that bill a statement that we are not going to allow people to raise campaign funds to spend money in a way that no other Americans can spend money? I thought the Republicans who are the new majority party were the folks who are saying to the people back home, we are not going to do business as usual anymore in Washington; no more business as usual. But business as usual is coming to the floor and saying, ``Oh, we are going to do this in 5 months; we are going to do this in 6 months.'' I note that this is coming from the very people who filibustered the last round of campaign finance reform and who saw their President, President Bush, veto the bill that was passed 2 years ago. So here is a chance to demonstrate to the American people whether we really are just rhetorically talking about reform and are just going to do the kind of pushbutton, feel-good things that happen to appeal to one party but do not constitute basic reform. What could be simpler than a fundamental principle that people who run for political office are not going to spend their campaign funds for personal use, are not going to go out and buy clothing with campaign funds, and are not going to pay for a trip to the Super Bowl with campaign funds? I have a lot of workers in Lynn, MA, or in Fall River or New Bedford who dream about buying new clothes or going to the Super Bowl but who do not have campaign funds with which to do so. So here we are with an opportunity to say to the average American we are going to live just like you do, we are going to spend our campaign money strictly on campaigning. Is that frightening? But we are being told by those on the other side of the aisle that somehow such a proposal does not belong on a bill that is specifically geared to requiring Congress to live like the rest of America. So what we are seeing, Mr. President, is that there is a difference between the reality and the rhetoric once again. Some people are prepared only to talk a good game about reform. Is there anybody here who truly disagrees that campaign funds should not be spent on personal use? My friend from Iowa talked about a consensus. Is there really not a consensus in the Congress that campaign funds should not be spent on personal use? I would think there would be 100 votes to support that. Let us put that to the test. I think we ought to find out whether there are 100 votes for that proposition. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be temporarily set aside for the purpose of consideration of another amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is the second time in 6 months that I have risen to discuss the terrifying implications of abortion clinic murders, but now I am deeply saddened that my State has joined others that have seen the horror and felt the pain of this senseless violence. Last Friday morning 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. In response to her smile and welcome, 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. In mourning her death, many people in Massachusetts and in the country are wondering about why this occurred and they are also wondering about who was Shannon Lowney and what does her life now show us. Her friends called her ``Shanny'' and she was a very 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 in a generation that has been often called Generation X or the uninvolved generation, yet Shannon confronted injustice and acted on her deep and abiding belief that we are all in this together; that we are community and each of us must accept our personal responsibility within that community, no matter what our beliefs. The irony and the tragedy is that to John Salvi, Shannon's life meant nothing except an opportunity to make a statement. The good and the 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 confident 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 other people. Contrast Shannon's life and her motives and the motives of a man like John Salvi--a man who killed one person and wounded five others and then left Planned Parenthood and walked a few blocks to the Preterm Health Services Clinic where he asked Lee Ann Nicols, a 38-year-old receptionist engaged to be married this year, whether this was, indeed, the Preterm Clinic. She said yes, and he shot her from less than 1 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, once in the back, and then he left. So five people injured, two people killed. He then drove 600 miles south to the Hillcrest Clinic in Norfolk, VA, where he went on another shooting spree, but nobody was hurt. And now we must ask ourselves what does this mean, 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 beyond whatever warped perceptions he had as a diviner of the scriptures? 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: The Bible teaches us to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Therefore, according to his reasoning killing a man who is about to kill an unborn child constitutes self-defense. Mr. President, this syllogism lies at the heart of one of the most corrosive dangers that we face in an ever increasingly violent world and a violent America. There are religious teachings that offer justifiable excuses for killing, but the mainstream religions, all of them, have always promoted tolerance over intolerance. The only people who use religion to justify cold-blooded murder are religious fanatics, and they must be recognized as such. But what happened in Brookline and 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 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, and particularly as we begin this term in the Senate, to understand the increasing danger that can be wrought by those who interpret religious teachings as a crusade against others and as a justification for cold-blooded murder or for violent acts. It is our task to understand that we live in dangerous times and that the easy availability of weapons in society makes it even more dangerous. People like John Salvi and Paul Hill have increased the danger and increased the threat to those who choose to show their commitment and their faith by helping others build a better life for themselves and their families. So I believe, Mr. President, it is time for both sides on the abortion issue to exert leadership and to show that we can find a way to express our views without increasing the rhetorical violence or the physical violence. It is our task to sit down and to talk to each other, and I commend my friend and constituent and his eminence, Cardinal Bernard Law of the Archdiocese of Boston, for his personal efforts to bring both sides together. He has shown courage in this regard. Even though he is strongly pro-life, he has called for an end, temporarily at least, to antiabortion protests in Boston. He is trying to bring everyone together in an unprecedented sense of negotiation. Cardinal Law has shown leadership and tolerance, and his deep faith serves as an example to all of us who want to bring an end to the senseless violence. 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 interest through tolerance for our differences and a mutual respect and understanding for each other. Mr. President, Shannon Lowney, obviously, did not deserve her fate. She was a good and decent woman, though some might disagree with what she chose to do. They certainly could not wish on her the death she found. She was the personification of the principles of freedom, freedom of choice and equality and the justice that unites us as a people, and she was working to help others because she cared about other human beings. 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 have a constitutional right to seek the procedure. We must learn from this and, indeed, in tribute to those who died, make certain that this constitutional right is protected at the Federal, State, and local level by providing the resources necessary to maintain peace in our country. When those shots rang out in Brookline last Friday, Mr. President, John Salvi did not just take life, he took something very precious from all of us. He took our freedom to believe and to express our beliefs as we choose and he took our freedom to act on our beliefs without fear of violence. We cannot permit that to happen in this country. For many days, there will be many who will continue to mourn the deaths of Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nicols. The people of my State will remain shocked and outraged at this senseless act of violence that took them from us. And I know 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 to think about as we witness other divisions in the United States of America, particularly the division of race. If we do not learn it, then we will dishonor the memory of these two young women from Massachusetts who lost their lives through intolerance in the name of God. I yield the floor. Mr. BREAUX addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Alaska introduced the Sustainable Fisheries Act previously and placed my comments in the Record as if read in full. I will simply address those comments except to say that we have a crisis in Massachusetts and New England, now a crisis that will grow across this country and all coastal States. We desperately need a better regimen for managing the fisheries of this country. It is my hope that colleagues, while we wrestle with the symbols and the quick hot buttons of the American political process, will focus on a program of enormous importance to people whose livelihoods depends on fishing.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on March 1, 1977, the Fishery Conservation and Management Act was signed into law in response to an urgent threat to the valuable living marine resources of our coastal waters. At that time, the threat to our domestic fisheries came in the form of an efficient and aggressive state-of-the-art foreign fishing fleet that was operating within sight of our shores and displacing our domestic fishermen and processors. In response, Congress, led by Senator Warren Magnuson, passed the Fishery Conservation and Management Act establishing a 200-mile fishery conservation zone and asserting United States management authority over fish within the conservation zone, as well as over anadromous species such as salmon throughout their migratory range. In honor of Senator Magnuson's leadership, in 1980, the act was officially retitled the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act. The Magnuson Act succeeded--it limited the operation of foreign fishing vessels and processors and encouraged the development of the U.S. domestic fishing fleet and processing industry. In 1993, U.S. commercial fishermen landed over 10 billion pounds of fish, producing $3.4 billion in dockside revenues. By weight of catch, the United States is now the world's sixth largest fishing nation. The United States is also the top seafood exporter, with exports valued at $3.1 billion in 1993. today there is another threat to our coastal fisheries. The threat is not from abroad but from ourselves. Since the implementation of the Magnuson Act, the number of commercial groundfish vessels in New England has increased by 70 percent, and the number of fishermen has risen by 130 percent. Although fish and shellfish are renewable resources, they are not unlimited. In several U.S. fisheries, a pattern has been repeated: Fishermen, lured by the promise of large and lucrative harvests, enter a fishery when fish populations are abundant. As the fishery develops, larger boats often replace smaller boats, the number of boats increases, and new technologies are continually introduced to improve each vessel's fishing power and efficiency. In several U.S. fisheries, these trends have been bolstered by government policies, including tax incentives and Federal loan guarantees, designed to stimulate development of the domestic fishing industry. The result is that the harvesting capacity in many fisheries has out-paced the capacity of the fisheries to renew themselves. U.S. fisheries also have suffered from destruction of essential habitat, destructive fishing practices, and water pollution. The key to the success of the Magnuson Act is the ability of the eight regional fisheries management councils established under the act to work with the National Marine Fisheries Service to manage the fisheries on a regional level while meeting the national standards set forth in the act. The councils have made a substantial effort to manage the Nation's fisheries--as of September 1, 1993, 33 fishery management plans are in effect with several others in development. However, their success in managing the nation's fisheries has been mixed. Critics charge that since the enactment of the Magnuson Act, the councils have sometimes reacted to developments in fisheries rather than anticipating problems--even when looming problems are apparent. In addition, the complexity of the process has impeded the council response, often exacerbating the problem. In many instances, minor management actions could have been taken sooner to avoid the need for more dramatic measures later. In some regions, including parts of the Northwest, the council members are no longer perceived as stewards of the public resource, providing fair and balanced representation, but are seen as protectors of special economic interests. The Magnuson Act requires that council members be knowledgeable or experienced with regard to the conservation and management, or the recreational or commercial harvest, of the fishery resources within their respective geographic areas of responsibility. However, this requirement has created situations in which a council member may have personal or financial interests in a fishery he or she is responsible for managing. In fact, despite the work of the councils, problems continue to exist in varying degrees in many regions. These include: continued overfishing; lack of coordination between councils and the Federal Government; lack of accountability; inconsistency in State and Federal management measures; and adoption of unenforceable management measures. Perhaps the most visible example of the problems in fisheries management is one with which I unfortunately am too familiar--the collapse of the traditional New England groundfish stocks of cod, haddock, and yellowtail flounder. In 1990, the commercial fishing industry in Massachusetts was a $300 million industry. By 1993, revenues had dropped to almost $232 million, and their year revenues are certain to be much lower. In 1993, the decline of these valuable fish stocks necessitated a substantial amendment to the fisheries management plan for these stocks in an effort to eliminate overfishing by cutting in half fishing mortality over the next 5 to 7 years. The initiation of regulations necessary to rebuild the fishery has already had significant economic impact on the coastal communities throughout New England. However, even before those programs could be fully implemented, scientific information from the National Marine Fisheries Service indicated that the situation was worse than predicted, and as a result the New England Fisheries Management Council voted to recommend that the Secretary of Commerce take emergency action to address the crisis in New England while it develops a plan amendment under normal procedures. In December, the Secretary took emergency action to close portions of U.S. waters of the Georges Bank and southern New England to commercial fishing in an effort to save the traditional groundfish stocks from commercial extinction. These emergency measures are the latest blows to the New England fishing industry that is already staggering from the dire situation which they face. Further fishing restrictions are likely to have disastrous economic and social impacts on the historic fishing communities of the Northeast. These problems must be addressed and reversed for the sake of the fishermen and the fish in New England and throughout the Nation. Over the last 2 years, the Commerce Committee has conducted a series of hearings here in Washington and in fishing communities around the U.S. coast. We have reviewed comments from members of the fishing industry, the administration, conservation groups and other public interest groups. This has been a bipartisan effort. I have worked closely with the senior Senator from Alaska. We and our colleagues share the desire to ensure plentiful yields of fish for years to come. The bill that I am introducing today is an effort to address the existing problems of the fisheries management process. I recognize that this bill is ambitious in scope. However, the fisheries of the United States are at a crossroads and significant action is required to remedy our fisheries management problems and preserve the way of life of our fishing communities. Fish on the dinner table is something that many Americans may have taken for granted in the past; but unless we take steps to ensure that these vital resources are conserved, they will not be there for future generations. I hope my colleagues will join me in committing themselves to passing legislation as soon as possible to ensure that the fisheries of the United States once again will be bountiful and sustainable. I look forward to working with the new chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Pressler, and his staff and of course, the former chairman and new ranking Democratic member, Senator Hollings and his staff, toward this end. I want to thank Senator Hollings, Senator Stevens and his staff, and the staff of the majority and the minority, for their assistance in preparing this bipartisan bill for introduction today. I ask unanimous consent that a summary of the bill's principal provisions, and the bill itself, appear in the Record following my remarks. Summary of Major Provisions--Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1995 The Sustainable Fisheries Act amends the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act to extend the authorization of appropriations through 1999, strengthen conservation efforts and rebuild depleted fisheries. Major provisions include the following:

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.