John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thought it was the entire colloquy.

Mr. KERRY. We are on the time of the Senator from Virginia or I wouldn't be doing this.

Mr. KERRY. I suggest the Senator from Alaska go first, since he wants to frame the change, and I will be happy to respond.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Illinois for his indulgence because he has allowed us to go ahead longer than he gave me. I thank him.

Mr. KERRY. I say to my friend from Virginia, I read that report very carefully. There is nothing in it that guarantees to me--there is terminology about further investigation, further evaluation, but that could be on paper; that could be a computer model; that could be in any number of ways that they decide satisfy a fairly strong compulsion, shall we say, within the institution to build. What we want to guarantee is that compulsion is appropriately measured against a clear empirical standard that we are establishing. I find absolutely nothing inconsistent in that. Moreover, with respect to the date that is compelling us--I know the chairman of the committee will agree with me on this --the fact is that significant changes have been made in the intelligence estimating process which has also made many people nervous about how people want to push this process a little bit. The Senator from Michigan talked about the possibility of a missile being fired by North Korea. Until, I think, a year ago or 2 years ago-- I will finish very quickly. I am not going to go on long. I want to make this point because it is important. We used to measure in an intelligence estimate more than mere possibility. We measure intention, and it was only in response to the 1995 Rumsfeld process that suddenly we changed the way we evaluate this. We now no longer contemplate intention; we merely look at possibility. I say to my friend, it may be a possibility that North Korea has one missile that they could fire, but they would have to be beyond insane to do it because they would not last on the face of this planet more than 30 minutes because of our response. So do they have an intention to do it, particularly when you measure it against the Perry mission, when you measure it against Kim Dae-jung's recent visit and the entire rapprochement that is currently taking place? Are we to believe this is a legitimate threat we should be responding to with such speed that will not guarantee the kind of testing the Senator from Illinois is asking for? That is our point. I think this is one where there are suspicions sufficient to raise questions about the guarantees that the testing will be there that we need.

Mr. KERRY. If I can answer the distinguished Senator, and I know the Senator from Illinois will talk about it more, the truth is, if you read the Senator's amendment in full, the Senator is very precise about those kinds of tests that he thinks the Congress ought to guarantee take place. The Secretary of Defense is a friend of mine, too. I went to meet with him 3 weeks ago on this very subject to spend some time talking it through with him, but I find nothing inappropriate, nor do I think he would as a former Member of this Chamber, in this Chamber expressing its will in requiring a certain set of tests with respect to a system. This is not the first time we will have required the Secretary of Defense to do something. In point of fact, when we pass the DOD authorization bill, we have literally hundreds of directives for the Secretary of Defense with respect to housing, treatment of deployments, recruitments--there are countless numbers of ways we direct him to do things. It is entirely appropriate we direct him----

Mr. KERRY. We face a situation where we are talking about putting together a system that the best scientists in the world tell us could literally be rendered absolutely inoperative, if it is simply deployed; all you have to do is put the system out there, and you have the ability to create decoys with fairly unsophisticated technology. In fact, General Welch himself has said in his report, and he said it before the Armed Services Committee the other day, that they anticipate the C-1 deployment, which is the deployment currently contemplated, with countermeasures by year 2005, is a deployment in which they anticipate current technology, current state-of-the-art technology, has the ability to deploy countermeasures. They say you could have bomblets. After the stage separates in outer space and it is in that midstage, you could have bomblets, up to 100 of them, released from 1 single warhead. Strictly speaking, that is not a countermeasure because it is not directed at the entire system. But it is a countermeasure in that it voids the effectiveness of the system or the capacity of the system to work effectively. I ask my colleagues to look around the wall of this Chamber. I counted earlier, in the great amount of time we had to wait for this debate, 88 lights up there on the outer section. That is fewer than 100 of these bomblets. I ask you to just look at those. We are supposed to talk about a system that would be effective enough to destroy bombs coming at us from outer space, at a spacing far greater than any of those lights, at tens of hundreds of miles an hour, with the capacity to distinguish and break through every single one of them to prevent a chemical weapon or biological weapon, that could be completely lethal to the entire city of New York, Los Angeles, to a whole State, from hitting this country. Does anybody here really believe we are going to be able to go down that kind of sophisticated, discriminative capacity? Some say maybe we might get there in 10 years, 20 years, 30 years; that we might have that ability if everything worked correctly. Maybe we can develop that kind of system ultimately. But at what cost? Then the question is, What is the next tier of countermeasure that defeats whatever it is we did to defeat their countermeasure? People sit here and say: Don't worry about that, Senator; we are just going to have a technological superiority. All you have to do is go back to the cold war, 50 years of point- counterpoint; step-counterstep. We do the atom bomb; they do the atom bomb. We do the hydrogen bomb; they do the hydrogen bomb. We put them on long-range aircraft; they put them on long-range aircraft. We MIRV; they MIRV. They do Sputnik; we do Sputnik. Out of all of the measures through the entire cold war, the United States of America was the first to do them almost every single time. I think the record is all but once and maybe twice. Every single time we did it, it may have taken them 5 years, it may have taken them 7 years, but they did it. And finally we decided that we were safer by passing the ABM Treaty and beginning to move in the opposite direction, first with SALT and then with START. Now all we are asking in this amendment is let's be certain, before we spend these billions of dollars. I happen to support this. I want to be very clear about this. I support the notion of developing a limited, capable, mutually deployed system for national defense that could, indeed, strike down a potential rogue missile or accidental firing. No leader of the United States could responsibly suggest we are going to write off an entire city or State, or half our country. Of course we have an obligation to go down that road, but we have an equal obligation to do it in a way that does not wind up upsetting the entire balance of the arms race, or our current process of diminishing arms, that does not tell all our allies the United States is going to break out, at some point, of their regime at our own will; that we have not established a sufficient level of scrutiny, of transparency, of mutuality, that brings people along with us so they understand where we are going. I say to my friend, I am all for continuing as rapidly as we can the technological development, the research, the capacity to do this, but don't we want to do it in a way that guarantees we have a system that can do what it sets out to do without inviting a set of unintended consequences that actually wind up making the world not as safe as we were when we began the process? That is all we are asking. I can envision a world where the Russians and the Chinese and others decide we are all safer if we have a capacity to prevent a terrorist from firing some kind of missile from anywhere, but we are only safer if other countries move along with us and perceive that they are sharing in that safety and that, somehow, it is not a new measure directed by the United States against their current level of perceived security or threat level. All of this is an ongoing process of perceptions: How they perceive us; how we perceive them. It is important to be sensitive to those perceptions. I believe what the amendment of the Senator from Illinois will do will actually build on General Welch's recommendations. It will explicitly set out what the BMDO should do. It will require ground and flight testing that will make the system safer and better. It will ultimately guarantee us that we will get the kind of system we want. General Welch says he intends for the independent review team to address these countermeasure issues. It seems to me what the Senator from Illinois is doing is guaranteeing that the Congress is going on record, just as we did in saying we think we ought to pursue this, just as we did in suggesting that there are certain threshold levels that we ought to respond to with respect to our intelligence. My final comment is, picking up where the Senator from Michigan closed, the 2005 deadline is exactly what the Senator from Michigan defined it as. It is, in effect, an out-of-the-sky, artificially arrived at deadline. Yet it has been driving this debate and driving the Congress' actions. We have time to pursue this thoughtfully and efficiently. That is what this amendment sets out to do. I congratulate the Senator from Illinois.

Mr. KERRY. This is the most welcome acceptance of the power of my argument I have ever had on the floor of the Senate. I thank the distinguished chairman. But I am confident what the Senator from Illinois wanted to do--and I share this belief--was to have the Senate talk about this. I think we ought to talk about this. So I do not think taking 1 hour to discuss something which hopefully will pass overwhelmingly, or that we then accept, is inappropriate. I think we need to think about this.

Mr. KERRY. If we can do it on the Senator's time?

Mr. KERRY. We have a limited time.

Mr. KERRY. I said to the distinguished chairman of the committee, I don't understand why he would not want to accept this, because, as a matter of common sense, every Member of the Senate ought to be interested in knowing that if we are going to spend $10 billion, $20 billion, $40 billion, $60 billion, $100 billion to create a weapons system, a defensive or offensive system, we ought to know that it works. We ought to know it can accomplish its goal. Some of the best scientists in the United States of America are not politicians. They do not come at this as Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals. They are scientists. They win Nobel Prizes for their science. They go to MIT, Stanford, New York University, all over this country.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Illinois for his leadership, and I thank also the Senator from Minnesota for his common sense, leadership, and eloquence on it. This is really a matter of--I guess the best word to summarize it-- common sense. My prayer is that we in the Senate are not going to become prisoners of politics on an issue that is as critical to the national security interests of our country--indeed, of the world. This is the most important arms decision we will make in years. I am not going to get into the comparisons of when the last one was, but certainly in the last 10 or 15 years. I think what the Senator from Illinois is asking for ought to fit into the political philosophy of every single member of the Republican Party. I would have hoped the Senator, the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, would say we should accept this amendment. How is it that we could be talking about deploying a weapons system?

Mr. KERRY. If we are strictly testing between one location, one direction, and our radar system is specifically positioned to anticipate an attack from a certain location, if that were to be the case, we would face a completely different situation, would we not?

Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield further for a question, when we talk about multiple sources, it is possible for a so-called rogue state--and the term itself is one that is perhaps questionable today, but the so-called rogue state could take a rusty tanker, fit it out with the capacity to shoot, drive it out of a harbor to almost any location in an ocean in the world, and decide to shoot from there. Is that accurate?

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding, and I ask the Senator from Virginia, that the testing that has been laid out in the protocols that I have seen contemplates testing almost exclusively from off the coast of California and Kwajalein Island, which by their own admission, the military has said are less than ideal in representing the multiple different sources from which a legitimate attack could come. There is nothing in any protocol that I have seen to date suggesting that the testing that will take place meets the kind of testing that the Senator from Illinois is looking for.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Finally, I ask the Senator, the entire program is currently driven by a date essentially arrived at by the national intelligence estimate, that suggested that 2005 is the first date there might be a possibility of a missile being fired; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, tonight, Senator Stevens offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 to amend Section 342. The amendment reflects a compromise reached between Senator Stevens, Baucus, Lautenberg and myself. I want to thank Senator Stevens for working with us to address grave concerns we had with Section 342 of the bill. Mr. President, I would like to make a few comments about Section 342 and discuss why I had such great concerns over the impact it would have had on environmental compliance. Section 342, as it was passed out of the Armed Services Committee, would have weakened a fundamental environmental principle that protects the environment and public health in communities across the nation. It is the principle that national environmental laws should apply to the federal government in the same manner as they apply to state and local governments and to private facilities, including companies, universities, hospitals, and nonprofit entities. Section 342 would have created a double standard by subjecting corporations, state and local facilities to one legal standard and Department of Defense facilities to a second, weaker standard. More importantly, it had the great potential to undermine compliance with national environmental and public health protections at military facilities across the nation--putting the environment and citizens at risk. Specifically, the provision amended existing law to require Congressional authorization before the DOD pays environmental and public health penalties assessed by state and federal authorities in excess of $1.5 million or based on ``economic benefit'' or ``size-of- business'' criteria. As a result, it provided DOD a congressional reprieve not provided to any other entity. It created a double standard. Under current law, a DOD facility that violates the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, or the Clean Air Act is subject to the same kind of penalties as a private facility. By waiving sovereign immunity--and subjecting federal facilities to fines--we create the financial hammer that forces sometimes reluctant government bureaucracies to comply. And we apply the law equally to all. Congress recognized this principle in 1992 with the enactment of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, which waived sovereign immunity under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The bill was sponsored by Majority Leader George Mitchell, who said in floor debate that, ``A waiver of sovereign immunity moves us from the disorder of Federal noncompliance to a forum in which all entities are subject to the same law and to full enforcement action.'' He added that: ``The principle [of waving sovereign immunity] is important because, without it, there is only voluntary compliance. History demonstrates that voluntary compliance does not work.'' The Federal Facilities Compliance Act had 33 cosponsors in the Senate--myself included. It was a bipartisan effort that passed the Senate with a vote of 94-3 and the House by a vote of 403-3. It was signed into law by President George Bush, who said that, ``The objective of the bill is to bring all Federal facilities into compliance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste laws, to waive Federal Sovereign immunity under those laws, and to allow the imposition of fines and penalties.'' He added, ``Four years ago I promised the American people that I would make the federal government live up to the same environmental standards that apply to private citizens. By signing this bill, we take another step toward fulfillment of that promise.'' It was an important step for the states coping with federal agencies that were immune to enforcement and that refused to comply. The California Secretary of Environmental Protection, James M. Strock, said that in passing the Act, Congress took ``an important step in restoring the link between environmental responsibility and remediation of environmental damage at federal facilities.'' He continued, ``The Act provides an essential tool to states and localities which seek compliance with hazardous waste laws.'' The National Association of Attorneys General applauded the passage of the Act. Their statement read that, ``The [legislation] has been among the Association's highest priorities on Capitol Hill for the past five years. . . . [The] Attorneys General have repeatedly called upon Congress to clarify the waiver of federal sovereign immunity, which has thus far prevented the states from ensuring compliance at contaminated facilities through assessment of fines and penalties.'' I feel that Section 342 would have rolled back the progress we've made with the Federal Facilities Compliance Act and other laws. It would have been a mistake. We should allow our law enforcement agencies to do their job. Section 342 of the DOD bill was opposed by the National Governors' Association, the National Association of Attorneys General, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. In a joint letter they write that, ``States report that the federal government is the nation's largest polluter and military installations are a major contributor to that pollution. Section 342 is a step backward from the progress we have made in changing the attitude of military installations toward compliance with the nation's environmental laws. We urge you to support efforts to strike the provisions.'' This letter is signed by Governor Kenny Guinn of Nevada, Attorney General Christine Gregoire of Washington, and Senator Beverly Gard of Indiana. Section 342 was also opposed by the Environmental Council of the States. It writes that, ``The state environmental commissioners, along with governors, state legislators, attorneys general and other officials of state government have insisted that the federal government live by exactly the same standards and requirements that it imposes on all other parties, and we all oppose this provision in S. 2549. Exempting military installations from one of the basic tools of environmental enforcement is bad policy, and would seriously erode our capacity to ensure our citizens the protection of federal and state laws.'' The letter is signed by R. Lewis Shaw, Deputy Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control and President of the Council. Mr. President, even Governor George W. Bush of Texas recognizes the important principle of treating federal facilities as we treat state and local governments and private facilities. On Governor Bush's website--georgebush.com --the Governor has posted his environmental platform. The sixth plank in that platform reads as follows: ``Direct active federal facilities to comply with the environmental protection laws and hold them accountable.'' It continues, ``Governor Bush will expect the federal government to lead by example. He believes it is time to end the double standard that has federal government acting as enforcer of the nation's environmental laws, while at the same time causing pollution that violates those laws.'' Mr. President, last year, a provision similar to Section 342 was incorporated into the FY 2000 DOD appropriations bill. The Congressional Budget Office evaluated that provision and concluded that, ``Based on information from DOD and on conversations with representatives of state governments, CBO believes that requiring DOD to seek specific authorization from the Congress before paying each fine . . . will likely delay the payment of some fines. To the extent the Congress fails to authorize fines in the future, it is possible that the section would make it more difficult for states and local governments to negotiate for compliance with environmental laws.'' The letter is signed by Dan. L. Crippen, Director of the CBO. Plain and simple, if we had passed Section 342 we would have rolled back environmental and public health protections for thousands of Americans who live near DOD facilities and for generations who will face the costs of cleanup. Our state attorneys--the people in the field enforcing our laws--our governors and our state environmental commissioners--and even the likely Republican nominee for President are telling us it is a mistake to do so. Mr. President, the principle is not just rhetoric--it is supported by the record. In 1993, compliance by federal facilities with the Resources Conservation and Restoration Act was 55.4 percent. Almost half of all federal facilities operated out of compliance. Why? Because the law was unclear as to whether or not environmental fines could be assessed against federal facilities. But with the passage of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act in 1992--when DOD and other federal facilities faced fines and penalties for the first time--compliance started to climb. By 1998, compliance at federal facilities had reached 88.2 percent. And the opposite has also proven true. Federal compliance under the Clean Water Act, which does not have a clear waiver, has dropped at federal facilities. In 1993, more than 94 percent of federal facilities were in compliance, and by 1998 that number had dropped to just 61.5 percent. According to enforcement officials at EPA and state government, that decline coincided with court decisions that interpreted the Clean Water Act as having only a limited waiver of sovereign immunity. To reverse that trend, I understand that Senator Coverdell has introduced legislation to waive sovereign immunity for federal facilities. That Republican-led initiative now has now been cosponsored by Senators Breaux, Chafee, DeWine, Grams, and Voinovich. Some argued that last year's provision wouldn't impact enforcement because, like Section 342, Congress can authorize the fine. But the numbers don't bear out that prediction. Why? Because investigators and attorneys knew full well that DOD was about to get a ``Get Out Of Jail Free Card'' from Congress. Even the best legal work can be overturned if Congress simply decides not to act on an authorization. As a result, enforcement actions have dropped off. As with any law, without strong enforcement, compliance will fall. The principle is simple, Mr. President. If you want people, companies, institutions, and the government to comply with the law you must be tough on crime--including environmental crime. The way to ensure that all facilities comply with the law is to make sure that pollution does not pay. If the threat of a large fine is on the horizon--if the laws have teeth--everyone will be far more inclined to comply. Mr. President, I want to focus some on the issue of ``economic benefit'' and ``size-of-business'' criteria and what it means to limit the federal and state authority to impose a fine based on those criteria. There seems to be some confusion as to why a federal or state authority would seek a penalty based on economic benefits at a DOD facility. The Report language accompanying Section 342 notes that the DOD, in the Committee's view, has no economic competitors in regard to the Clean Air Act. Therefore, the principle of economic benefit or size-of-business should not apply. Mr. President, I believe that is an incorrect reading of the Clean Air Act and other relevant statutes. Foremost, an economic benefit provision prevents a facility, whether it's private or federal, from benefitting financially from noncompliance. Federal and state authorities need the power to make noncompliance economically unviable. We cannot have a system that rewards people for breaking the law. The Report language accompanying Section 342 argues that economic benefit is tied to ``competition'' among businesses and intended to prevent economic advantage through noncompliance. That is a narrow, misreading of the Clean Air Act. For example, all across the country, electric utilities--including municipal facilities--operate without ``competitors'' as the report defines the term. Utilities are guaranteed a market in return for providing a set amount of power. This is changing with competition, but many did and some still do operate as sanctioned monopolies. But they are not exempt from fines and penalties in the Clean Air Act. Further, EPA and the states assess ``economic benefit'' fines against hospitals, universities, and local and state governments. For example, in a Clean Water Act challenge, the United States versus City of San Diego in 1991, a federal court found that the ``plaintiffs' analysis of economic benefit is valid as to municipalities. While it is difficult to quantify precisely the savings realized by the City as a result of its intransigence, plaintiffs have demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence that the city has saved in excess of $300 million over approximately the last thirty years by failing to invest in capital improvements.'' The case shows that economic benefits apply to nonbusiness entities--the City of San Diego and that economic benefit is based on ``savings'' from noncompliance. Mr. President, ``economic benefit'' and ``size-of-business'' criteria are as applicable to DOD as they are to private companies, non-profits, states, and other federal agencies. We should not rollback protections and create a situation in which a manager within the DOD could rationalize noncompliance because it saves money--we must demand compliance from federal facilities. Further, Mr. President, the use of these criteria to enforce the law has been endorsed by the states. The Attorneys Generals, the Governors and the Conference of Legislatures specifically addressed this issue in their letter opposing Section 342. They write that, ``The economic benefit analysis, in particular, is important to states because it prevents DOD from considering a fine merely as a cost of doing business . . .'' The Environmental Council of the States, which represents our state environmental commissioners, writes, ``Section 342 would have severely restricted the ability of states to ensure that facilities do not realize financial gain through noncompliance. Typically, states include in their penalties an amount that offsets these financial benefits. In this way, they significantly reduce economic incentives to avoid environmental and public health requirements.'' A cursory review of state policy conducted by the Governors, Attorneys General and the State Commissioners at my request, found that most states use economic benefits, including Texas, Montana, South Carolina, Minnesota, Colorado, Indiana, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Alaska, Connecticut, and California. The Armed Services Committee Report with S. 2549 states that ``[i]t is the committee's view that the application of the economic benefit or size of business penalty assessment criteria to the DOD is inconsistent with the statutory language and the legislative history under the [Clean Air Act.]'' Again, I disagree and suggest that is narrow and incorrect reading of the Act. I believe a plain reading of the Clean Air Act makes it clear that all fines and sanctions apply to DOD. Section 118(a) of the Act reads as follows: ``Each department, agency, and instrumentality of executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government . . . shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of air pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity. The preceding sentence shall apply (A) to any requirement whether substantive or procedural (including any record keeping or reporting requirement, any requirement respecting permits and any other requirement whatsoever), (B) to any requirement to pay a fee or charge imposed by any State or local agency to defray the costs of its air pollution regulatory program, (C) to the exercise of any Federal, State, or local administrative authority, and (D) to any process and sanction, whether enforced in Federal, State, or local courts, or in any other manner.'' In addition, the managers report for the 1990 amendments regarding Section 118(a) reads that, ``the new language is intended to refute the argument [DOD is not subject to fee requirements] and to affirm the obligation of federal agencies to comply with all requirements, including such fees or charges.'' I add that Section 118(b) of the Clean Air Act is titled ``Exemptions'' and it specifically delineates under what circumstances the DOD can be exempted from enforcement action--and it makes no reference to the size of a fine or the criteria set forth in the penalty section. The Clean Air Act is very clear on this point. Mr. President, Section 342 reached beyond the Clean Air Act. It also applies to the Resources Conservation and Restoration Act, Toxic Substances Control Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. I believe that a plain reading of RCRA and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act makes clear that DOD should be treated the same as private facilities. There is no ambiguity in the law or the legislative history. In the floor debate Senator Mitchell said, ``A waiver of sovereign immunity moves us from the disorder of Federal noncompliance to a forum in which all entities are subject to the same law and to full enforcement action.'' At the bill signing Bush said, ``The objective of the bill is to bring all Federal facilities into compliance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste laws, to waive Federal Sovereign immunity under those laws, and to allow the imposition of fines and penalties.'' Section 102 of RCRA reads, ``The Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive and procedural requirements referred to in this subsection include, but are not limited to, all administrative orders and all civil and administrative penalties and fines, regardless of whether such penalties or fines are punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations.'' In regard to EPA actions against DOD, the Act reads that, ``The Administrator may commence an administrative enforcement action against any department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal Government pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this Act. The Administrator shall initiate an administrative enforcement action against such a department, agency, or instrumentality in the same manner and under the same circumstances as an action would be initiated against another person.'' Mr. President, I believe the law is clear. The Report language with S. 2549 offers us an inaccurate reading of the Clean Air Act and fails to address other environmental law statutes it impacts. Some have suggested that Section 342 would have almost no impact on enforcement because few cases exceed $1.5 million. As a result, we will rarely--if ever--need a congressional authorization to impose a fine. That's simply wrong. Section 342 reads that congressional authorization is needed if the fine exceeds $1.5 million or if it is based on ``economic benefit'' or ``size of business'' criteria. In theory, Mr. President, all fines originating with the Environmental Protection Agency would have been caught by Section 342, regardless of their size. It is EPA's policy and that of many states that all fines should incorporate the economic benefit gained from noncompliance. It is difficult to know how many fines will need to pass through the new process created by Section 342 and how many will not be authorized or authorized at a lower amount. But, we do know that it could be a fine of any size, no matter how small. Moreover, the threat of a large fine will be gone if Section 342 passed. This alone will deter compliance. The Congressional Budget Office specifically noted in its letter from last year that, ``the States, local governments, and federal agencies often use the threat of theses fines as part of the negotiation with facilities to achieve compliance with environmental laws.'' The Attorneys General--the people in the field doing the work--write of Section 342 that, ``The threat of a significant fine or penalty is one of the more effective ways state officials have for encouraging violators, including military installations, to take responsibility for the environmental consequences of their operations.'' Any prosecutor, whether they are involved in a criminal action, or civil environmental compliance, will tell you that the threat of long jail term or a large fine is critical to enforcing the law. Finally and most importantly, Mr. President, by giving the largest violators, those fined over $1.5 million, a chance for congressional reprieve, Section 342 created a perverse system where only the most egregious violators get a special legal loophole unavailable to less egregious violators. It is a bad precedent. Mr. President, the compromise we have reached does not resolve all of my concerns, but it addresses many of them. Under the agreement reached tonight, offered by Senator Stevens and passed, all fines of $1.5 million or more, assessed against DOD by a federal agency for environmental noncompliance, over the next three years, must be approved by Congress. State enforcement actions are not impacted by this agreement and our state Attorneys General can continue to enforce the law as they now do. The concepts of economic benefits and size of business remain in place in our environmental enforcement at the state and federal level. Only fines equal to or in excess of $1.5 million will require a congressional authorization and that result in only a small percentage of fines needing authorization. And it expires in three years. I do have some concerns with the agreement. By requiring a congressional authorization on fines of $1.5 million or more, we provide the most egregious violators a congressional reprieve and, therefore, it will limit our ability to deter noncompliance because the threat of a large fine will be reduced. However, I want to note and recognize the concerns Senator Stevens has raised. Enforcement power, whether it sits with the EPA or the states, can be abused. The agreement expires in three years. In that time, Congress will have a close look at EPA's actions in assessing large fines. Again, I want to thank Senators Stevens, Baucus and Lautenberg.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Alaska for his efforts to try to reach an accommodation. I listened carefully to the arguments of the Senator from Alaska who made it clear that he had a very strong belief that certain facilities in the State of Alaska had been treated in a way that he believed very deeply was inappropriate and resulted in fines that were excessive and, in his judgment, wrought with some bureaucratic issues that he had no recourse to resolve. The initial section in the bill reported by the committee would regrettably have prohibited the EPA entirely from being able to enforce. A number of Members felt very strongly that was an overreaction in how we cure the problem that the Senator from Alaska was bringing to our attention without destroying the ability of the EPA to be able to enforce across the country. So we reached an agreement where 98 percent of all those enforcement actions in the country which are under $1.5 million, the EPA will continue to be able to enforce as it currently does. It is appropriate for this 3-year period only to review what the impact may be of some larger level over that period of time. To have proceeded down the road we were going to proceed, in my and other people's judgment, would have created a terrible double standard. Under current law, a DOD facility that violates the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or the Safe Drinking Water Act or the Toxic Substances Control Act or the Clean Air Act is subject to the same kinds of penalties as a private facility. By waiving sovereign immunity and subjecting Federal facilities to fines, we created the financial hammer to be able to force a sometimes reluctant Government and a Government bureaucracy to comply. Congress recognized this principle in 1992 when we passed the law. The bill was sponsored by majority leader Mitchell. He said at the time that a waiver of sovereign immunity would move us from the disorder of Federal noncompliance to a forum in which all entities were subject to the same law and to full enforcement action. I am pleased to say it passed the Senate by a vote of 94-3, and it passed the House by a vote of 403-3. It was signed into law by President Bush, who at the time said it would bring all Federal facilities into compliance with applicable Federal and State hazardous waste laws. I think that very much is our purpose today--to protect our capacity to be able to secure that kind of enforcement. I thank the Senator from Alaska for his very reasonable approach to this. I think we have been able to resolve the most egregious situations about which he has expressed appropriate concern, but at the same time we have been able to preserve the principle of Federal compliance and the principle of all people being treated equally. I thank the Chair and I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy in allowing us to deal with this issue.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned that the supplemental appropriations contained in this Military Construction Appropriations conference report (accompanying H.R. 4425) do not provide for essential funding for SBA's popular 7(a) guaranteed business loan program. For nearly 50 years, SBA's 7(a) loan program has provided loans to start and grow small business across the country when they could not access financing in the commercial marketplace. SBA provides this assistance in the form of guaranties for loans made by a network of more than 5,000 private sector lenders. Currently, SBA's 7(a) portfolio includes nearly $40 billion in 7(a) loans representing as many as 150,000 small businesses that might not be in business today were it not for their SBA guaranteed loans. The 7(a) program is funded by user fees and a modest appropriation intended to offset any potential losses on the SBA guaranteed loans. For fiscal year 2000, the taxpayers' cost for a 7(a) loan is only $1.16 for every $1000 guaranteed. And for each $10,000 loaned, at least one job is created. Despite the tremendous benefits provided by the 7(a) loan program, however, this year the available program level will not be adequate to meet the needs of the eligible, credit-worthy small businesses that will seek assistance from SBA. This means that by the end of the fiscal year the Agency will have to turn away some of the small entrepreneurs that are relying on SBA-guaranteed loans to finance the growth of their businesses. In an environment where small business is responsible for much of the growth in the American economy and most of the new job opportunities, this is penny-wise and pound-foolish. SBA has funds available that could be transferred to the 7(a) program to help to make sure that every eligible, credit-worthy small business that seeks SBA's loan assistance is able to access the loans that they need. The simple request would allow SBA to use funds that have been previously appropriated to it for the 7(a) program. If any of us were asked whether we support the small businesses in our States--in our districts, we would answer with a resounding ``yes.'' By including language to allow SBA to use existing funds for 7(a) program loans, we will be demonstrating in a very tangible way that our local small businesses can really count on this support. I don't understand why we, the Congress, continue to deny this simple request that means so much to so many and costs so little. This is nothing unanticipated or given to the Congress at the last minute: In SBA's FY 2000 request, SBA asked for a program level of $10.5 billion for this program. The SBA only received a program level of $9.75 billion. The President's supplemental request letter of February 25, 2000 included SBA's request for authority to transfer money to the 7(a) program to raise the program level to the requested $10.5 billion. When the Administrator testified on the FY 2001 budget in March of this year, she stated that SBA would need the $10.5 billion program level for FY 2000 at the then current demand level. On May 22, SBA Administrator Alvarez sent letters to Chairmen Stevens and Gregg expressing her concern that the transfer was not included in S. 2536. In a letter from Jacob Lew, director of OMB, to Chairman Young, Director Lew mentioned the concern by the Administration of the transfer ability. Now I am expressing my concern that it is not in H.R. 4425.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Shark Conservation Act of 2000, legislation that will significantly improve conservation and management of sharks worldwide, and establish a consistent national policy toward the practice of shark-finning. The bill would prohibit the practice of shark finning and transshipment of shark fins by U.S. vessels, set forth a process to encourage foreign governments to end this practice by their own fishing fleets, and authorize badly needed fisheries research on shark populations. I am pleased to be joined in this effort by the Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings. Mr. President, sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to overfishing and slow to recover from depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. While many of our other highly migratory species such as tunas and swordfish are subject to rigorous management regimes, sharks have largely been overlooked until recently. The bill first amends the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act to prohibit shark finning, which is the practice of removing a shark's fins and returning the remainder of the shark to sea, and provides a rebuttable presumption that shark fins found on board a U.S. vessel were taken by finning, thus closing the transshipment loophole. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regulations in the Atlantic Ocean prohibit the practice of shark finning, but a nationwide prohibition does not currently exist. Shark fins comprise only a small percentage of the weight of the shark, and yet this is often the only portion of the shark retained. The Magnuson- Stevens Act and international commitments discourage unnecessary waste of fish, and thus I believe this bill ensure our domestic regulations are consistent on this point. Another goal of the Magnuson-Stevens Act--the minimization of bycatch and bycatch mortality--is an issue that I have been particularly committed to over the years. Because most of the sharks caught and finned are incidentally captured in fisheries targeting other species, I believe establishing a domestic ban will help us further reduce this type of shark mortality. Mr. President, this legislation would also direct the Secretary of Commerce to initiate negotiations with foreign countries in order to encourage those countries to adopt shark finning prohibitions similar to ours. The establishment of a prohibition of shark finning by United States fishermen, or in waters subject to our jurisdiction, will not reduce finning by international fishing fleets or transshipment or landing of fins taken by these fleets. At present, foreign fleets transship or land approximately 180 metric tons of shark fins annually through ports in the Pacific alone. The global shark fin trade involves at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins and other shark products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing and shark mortality around the world. International measures are an absolutely critical component of achieving effective shark conservation. Under my legislation, the Secretary would be mandated to report to Congress on progress being made domestically and internationally to reduce shark finning. Further, this legislation will establish a procedure for determining whether governments have adopted shark conservation measures which are comparable to ours through import certification procedures for sharks or shark parts. Imports of sharks or shark parts from countries that do not meet these certification procedures are prohibited. I have also included provisions which would provide technical assistance to foreign nations in an attempt to promote compliance. Finally, my bill would authorize a Western Pacific longline fisheries cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock assessments, identify fishing gear and practices that prevent or minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of released sharks, and provide data on the international shark fin trade. Mr. President, the United States is a global leader in fisheries conservation and management. I believe this legislation provides us the opportunity to further this role, and take the first step in addressing an international fisheries management issue. In addition, I believe the U.S. should continue to lead efforts at the United Nations and international conventions to achieve coordinated international management of sharks, including an international ban on shark-finning. I look forward to working with Committee members on this important legislation. Thank you Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday I introduced legislation, along with my good friend from Ohio Senator DeWine, that will set minimum standards for gun safety locks. There has been a lot of discussion swirling around the U.S. Congress and in State legislatures throughout the country about the use of handgun safety locks to prevent children from gaining access to dangerous weapons. In fact, just last week New York became the latest State to require that safety locks be sold with firearms. Seventeen states have Child Access Protection, or CAP laws in place, which permit prosecution of adults if their firearm is left unsecured and a child uses that firearm to harm themselves or others. An important element that is largely missing from the debate over the voluntary or required use of gun safety locks is the quality and performance of these locks. Mr. President, a gun lock will only keep a gun out of a child's hands if the lock works. There are many cheap, flimsy locks on the market that are easily overcome by a child. In fact just last week in Dale City, VA there was an absolutely heart-wrenching accidental shooting of a 10-year-old boy by his 13-year-old brother. The parents of these young boys purchased both a lock box and a trigger lock and I'm sure they assumed that they were safely storing their weapon. But, as was reported in Saturday's Washington Post, the boys easily got past the flimsy lock box and then got around the lock. This incident ended in unspeakable, but all too common tragedy with the death of a 10-year-old boy at the hands of his brother. Mr. President, the legislation Senator DeWine and I introduced yesterday might have prevented the accidental shooting of that young boy last week. Our legislation gives authority to the Consumer Product Safety Commission to set minimum regulations for safety locks and to remove unsafe locks from the market. Our legislation empowers consumers by ensuring that they will only purchase high-quality lock boxes and trigger locks. Storing firearms safely is an effective and inexpensive way to prevent the needless tragedies associated with unintentional firearm- related death and injury. And I am pleased that several states, including my home state of Massachusetts, have required the use of gun safety locks. Last July here in the U.S. Senate we passed an amendment that would require the use of gun safety locks. So, while I am encouraged by this trend of increasing the use of gun safety locks, I am genuinely concerned that with the hundreds of different types of gun locks on the market today it is difficult-- probably impossible--for consumers to be assured that the lock they are purchasing will be effective. The latest data released by the Centers for Disease Control in 1999 revealed that accidental shootings accounted for 7 percent of child deaths and that more than 300 children died in gun accidents, almost one child every day. A study in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine found that 25 percent of 3- to 4-year-olds and 70 percent of 5- to 6-year-olds had sufficient finger strength to fire 59 (or 92 percent) of the 64 commonly available handguns examined in the study. Accidental shootings can be prevented by simple safety measures, one of which is the use of an effective gun safety lock. As I have already mentioned, Mr. President, the use of gun safety locks is increasing in the United States. Despite the growing use of gun safety locks, such products are not subject to any minimal safety standards. Many currently available trigger locks, safety locks, lock boxes, and other similar devices are inadequate to prevent the accidental discharge of the firearms to which they are attached or to prevent access and accidental use by young children. Consumers do not have any objective criteria with which to judge the quality of gun safety locks. My colleagues on both sides of the aisle should be able to support this amendment. The legislation does not require the use of gun safety locks. It only requires that gun safety locks meet minimum standards. The legislation does not regulate handguns. It applies only to after- market, external gun locks. The Senate has been gridlocked since last July over the issue of gun control. And you can be sure that young lives have been needlessly lost due to our inaction. This legislation--which I truly believe every Senator can support--would make storing a gun in the home safer by ensuring safety devices are effective. It would empower consumers. And most importantly it would protect children and decrease the numbers of accidental shooting in this country. We simply cannot stand by any longer and watch our young children fall victim to accidental shootings. We cannot hear about tragedies like the one last week in Dale City, VA without responding. This legislation is a step in the right direction, one I believe every Senator should support.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me pick up, if I may, on the comments made by the Senator from Connecticut. There is a relationship between these amendments that are proposed by Senator Kennedy, Senator Bingaman, Senator Dodd, and myself. They are made with great respect for the leadership of the appropriations subcommittee. I share the feelings expressed by Senator Dodd that they are working within the constraints that have been imposed on them by the Congress in a sense through the budgeting process. What we are asking of our colleagues is to begin a process by which we more accurately reflect the truth of the budgeting process and the choices we as Senators face. The fact is, we have the ability to provide 60 votes to waive and to proceed to make a statement as the Senate that we believe a specific priority is significant enough that we ought to depart from the constraints. The constraints under which we are operating, that were very properly and articulately listed by the Senator from Pennsylvania, are restraints imposed by a Budget Act and by allocations that do not reflect the reality of the budget choice we face as a country because of the level of surplus. Since those allocations were made, we have in fact learned that we have a significant amount of additional funds available to us to begin to choose how we will reflect the priorities of our Nation. I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, a lot of us on this side of the aisle joined with them to put in place the fiscal discipline we all laud and believe is appropriate. It was a 1993 vote, in fact, that put in place the Deficit Reduction Act. Many of us are pleased that we finally were able to set this country on a course where we now have the current surpluses. We have to start to be smart about what kind of choices we are going to make. I keep hearing colleagues on both sides of the aisle come to the floor. They lament what is happening to children in America. They lament what is happening with respect to young people who are increasingly feeding into the juvenile justice system of the Nation. We hear the cries of anguish about children having children out of wedlock, about the failure of marriage in this country. But we don't seem to connect our legislative actions to things that really might make a difference in the lives of young people so they will choose a more moral, traditional, affirmative course for their own life. How do kids make those kinds of choices? Traditionally, in the America we always hear Members talking about, we have family, which is the best teacher of all, the most important connection of a child to their future. We have schools and teachers. History in America is replete with great personalities who harken back to a particular teacher who affected their life. We hear less and less of those stories in modern America. Finally, there is organized religion. Organized religion is the other great teaching entity. Not one that we are supposed to, in this body, specifically legislate about, but it is proper to acknowledge the role that religion plays as one of those three great teachers in the lives of children. The truth is, in America today we have an awful lot of young children who don't have contact with any one of those three teachers, not one. Their teachers are the streets. Colin Powell talks about it in his America's Promise, which appeals to people to make a voluntary commitment to try to intervene in the lives of some of those children and replace the absence of those three great teachers. What kids learn in the streets is not the real values of America; it is what I call ``coping skills.'' They learn how to get by. They learn how to survive. They learn the sort of ``law of the jungle,'' as some used to call it. The fact is, we are not doing enough, we Senators are not doing enough, to leverage those things that make a difference in the absence of the three great teachers. I ask any one of my colleagues: How do we break the cycle of a kid having a kid out of wedlock? How do we break the cycle of a child raised in an abusive household, whose role models in life are people who beat up on each other, shoot drugs, get into trouble, such as the role models for that 6-year-old kid who shot a 6-year-old classmate living in a crack house with an uncle, a parent in jail, no one responsible? What is that child's future, unless adults make the decision to somehow provide those positive forces that make a difference? What are the positive forces? Well, the positive forces are often some of the faith-based interventions, whether it is the Jewish Community Center or a Baptist organization or the Catholic Charities; but there are those entities out there that have a wonderful, extraordinary capacity to bring kids back from the brink. And then there are those organized entities that also do it, such as the Boys and Girls Club; Big Brother/ Big Sister; YMCA and YWCA; or a program in Boston called Youth Build, or City Year. All of these provide young people with alternatives and the ability to have surrogate parenting, fundamentally. That is what is really taking place. What is really taking place is those entities is providing an alternative. Now, we will debate in the Senate whether or not we are going to provide 200,000 H-1B visas. I am for it. I think we ought to provide that, or more, because we have an immediate need in this country to provide skilled people in order to keep the economic boom going and provide for critical technologies, to have good working people. But has it not occurred to my colleagues what an insult it is to our own system that we have to go abroad and import skilled labor to the United States, even as we are putting thousands of young kids into prison, into the juvenile justice system, and out into the streets, as the Senator from Connecticut just said, because we don't have afterschool programs? What are we going to do? We are going to import 200,000 skilled people to make up for the unskilled people whom we leave unskilled because we are unwilling to make the adult choices in the Senate that would make a difference in their lives. How can we boast about the extraordinary surplus we have in this country, with the stock market climbing to record levels, the most extraordinary amounts of wealth ever created in the history of any nation on the planet right here in the United States, but poverty among children has increased by 50 percent and the number of kids who are at risk has increased. I don't believe in the Federal Government taking over these programs. I don't believe in Washington dictating the solutions. But I do believe in Washington leveraging the capacity of people at the local level to be able to do what they know they need to do. So we are reduced to a debate where the Senator from Pennsylvania has to say, well, oh, my gosh, under our 201(b) allocation--or whatever the appropriate section is--we don't have enough money to be able to allocate because we have a total cap that has no relationship to the reality of what we must do. We keep saying, isn't it terrific that we have raised the amount of money--and it is terrific--when the real question is, are we doing what we need to do to get the job done? That is the question we ought to be asking. What is it going to take to guarantee that children in the United States of America are safe? What does it take to guarantee that we don't dump 5 million kids out into the streets in the afternoons, unsafe, and exposed to drug dealers and to all of the vagaries of the teenage years and all of the pressures that come with it in a modern society that doesn't have parents around to be able to help those kids make a better choice? We don't have to do that. We ought to make it the goal of the Senate to guarantee that every child in America is going to be safe and secure between the hours when teachers stop teaching and when those parents are coming home. And we can ask 100,000 questions about why it is we are not providing arts and music and sports and libraries that are open full-time, and Internet access. That is where my amendment comes in, Mr. President. Senator Kennedy has an amendment on teacher quality, which is linked to the capacity of kids to fill those high tech jobs that we talk about. Senator Dodd has an amendment talking about making those kids safe after school. My amendment seeks to increase the funding for the technology literacy challenge fund, which is a critically important education program that helps provide technology access, education, professional development, and instruction in elementary and secondary schools. All we say is that to qualify for the money, States have to submit a statewide technology plan that includes a strategy on how the States will include private, State, local, and other entities in the continued financing and support of technology in schools. There are two points that I can't stress enough. One is the importance of providing young people with the opportunity to learn how to use technology. I am not one of those people. I don't want to celebrate technology to the point of it being put up on a pedestal and it becomes an entity unto itself. Technology is not a god; it is not a philosophy; it is not a way of life. Technology is a tool, a useful tool. It is a critical tool for the modern marketplace and the modern world. But we are preordaining that we are going to have to have next year's H-1B plan, and the next year's H-1B plan, and another prison, and another program to deal with a whole lot of young kids for whom the digital divide becomes more and more real, who don't have accessability or the capacity to be able to gain the skills necessary to share in this new world. The fact is that there are too many teachers who don't have the ability to even teach; we have the schools wired; we have the e-rate. We are beginning to get increased access to the Internet. But what do you do with it? How many teachers know how to use the technology to really be able to educate kids? How many kids are, in fact, having the benefit of the opportunity of having teachers who have those skills so that they can ultimately maximize their opportunities? All we are suggesting is that we ought to be doing more to empower-- not to mandate, not to dictate, but to empower--those local communities that desperately want to do this but don't have the tax base to be able to do it. Let's give them that ability. That is the best role the Federal Government can play--to leverage things that represent national priorities, leverage the things that represent the best goals and aspirations of ourselves as a Nation. It is not micromanagement; it is, rather, putting in place a mechanism by which we have national priorities--to have good, strong families, to have kids who are computer literate, and to have more skilled workers. Those are national priorities. But if we turn our heads away and say the only priority in this country is to sort of sequester this money for the senior generation in one form or another, without any regard to the generation that is coming along that needs to fund Social Security, that needs to have a high value-added job so they can pay into it and adequately protect it, that is not Social Security protection. We have gone from 13 workers paying in for every 1 that is taking out--13 workers paying into the system for every 1 worker taking out-- to three paying in and one taking out. Now there are two paying in and one taking out. We have a vested interest as a nation in making sure those two paying in are capable of paying in; that they have a high value-added job that empowers them to pay in; when they pay in, it doesn't take so much of their income that they feel so oppressed by the system that they are not able to invest in their own children and in their own future. That is in our interest. That is a national priority. If we don't begin in the Senate tomorrow to adequately reflect the needs of our children in the money that we allocate, we will be seriously missing one of the greatest priorities the country faces. All of us understand the degree to which there is an increase in the digital divide of the country. The technology literacy challenge fund is a critical effort to try to provide those kids with an opportunity to close that gap. Last year, my home State of Massachusetts received $8.1 million. Some of the programs it put in place are quite extraordinary. Let me share with my colleagues one of the examples of this program that works so effectively. It is called the Lighthouse Technology Grant. The Lighthouse Technology Grant incorporates new technologies into the State curriculum framework so that it better motivates children to be able to learn. One of the schools in my State--the Lynn Woods Elementary School in Lynn--is integrating technology into the classroom by virtue of this grant. Fifth grade students at the Lynn Woods school are studying Australia. They have been able to videoconference directly with Australian students who are studying the Boston area. You have students engaging in a very personal and direct way, all of which encourages their learning and enhances their interest in the topic. They have also developed writing skills through special e-mail pen pal programs with Australian students. In addition, they have been able to connect more directly with the experience of life, thereby asking very direct questions and engaging in a personal exchange that they never could have experienced before because of telephone rates and because of the difficulties of communication under any kind of telephone circumstance. The Lighthouse Technology Grant is only one of eight programs funded by this challenge grant in Massachusetts. It also provides grants to a virtual high school program which enables school districts to offer students Internet courses ranging from advanced academic courses to technical and specialized courses. Let me emphasize the importance of that to my colleagues. A few weeks ago, I visited a high school in Boston, an inner-city high school, Dorchester High. I found that in this high school of almost 1,000 students in the inner city they are not able to provide advanced placement courses. I ask everybody here to imagine a high school that is supposed to be state of the art that doesn't have advanced placement courses. Yet, because of the virtual high school and because of the access to the Internet, if we close the digital divide, we can in fact make it affordable and accessible for schools that today have difficulty finding the teachers, affording the teachers, and providing the curriculum--and be able to do so immediately. That is the difference between somebody being able to go to college or being college ready or being able to go to college and advance rapidly in the kinds of curriculum and courses that will make even a greater difference in their earning capacity and in their citizen- contributing capacity at a later time. We need to recognize that unless we encourage this to happen, the transformation could take a lot longer than we want it to take. For example, it has taken only 7 years for the Internet to be adopted by 30 percent of Americans. That is compared to 17 years for television to be adopted by 38 percent, and for the telephone, 38 percent during the same amount of time. The world of work is obviously so much different and at a faster rate. But if we leave kids behind for a longer period of time, we will greatly restrain their learning capacity as well as our growth capacity as a country. The technology literacy challenge fund has been funded under the committee's mark at about $425 million. The administration actually asked for $450 million. The House has set a figure of $517 million. I think that is more reflective of the level of funding that is necessary in order to achieve the kind of transition that we wish for in this country. Some might argue we could even do more. But it is clear to me that by measuring the priorities as expressed by other colleagues we can, in fact, do more if we will challenge the system a little bit, if we will push the limits a little bit, and if we will look at the reality of the budget choices that the Congress faces. I think nothing could be more important for all of us as Senators and as Congress this year. I hope my colleagues will embrace the notion that we can in fact do an appropriate waiver of the budget and set this as a priority of the Senate. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senators Bingaman and Mikulski be added as original cosponsors of the amendment.