John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, under those circumstances, I know that the chairman needs to get to those talks. I was going to speak for a longer period of time. What I will do is just proceed for another 5 minutes, to summarize my thoughts, if it is agreeable.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are two subjects that I wish to bring to my colleagues' attention this afternoon. First, I want to talk about an issue of enormous international consequence--the situation with respect to Iraq. For the last 2 months, as we know, Saddam Hussein has been testing, yet again, the full measure of the international community's resolve to force Iraq to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction. That has been the fundamental goal of our policy toward Iraq since the end of the gulf war and is reflected in the U.N. agreements reached in the aftermath of the war. Two months ago, on August 5, Saddam Hussein, formally adopting a recommendation that had been made by the Iraqi parliament 2 days earlier, announced that Iraq would no longer permit U.N. weapons inspectors to conduct random searches in defiance of its obligations under those U.N. resolutions that were adopted at the end of the war, and also in violation, I might add, of its agreement last February with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, to give UNSCOM teams, accompanied by diplomatic overseers, unconditional access to all sites where UNSCOM believed that Iraq may be stockpiling weapons or agents to make those weapons. Let's understand very clearly that ever since the end of the war, it has been the clear, declared, accepted, and implemented policy of the United States of America and its allies to prevent Saddam Hussein from building weapons of mass destruction. And as part of that agreed-upon policy, we were to be permitted unlimited, unfettered, unconditional, immediate access to the sites that we needed to inspect in order to be able to make that policy real. Iraq's defiance and the low-key--some would say weak--response of the United States and the United Nations initially went unnoticed, in part because of other events, including the dual bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, as well as the obvious fascination with domestic events that have dominated the headlines now for so many months. Those events, frankly, have continued to obscure the reality of what is happening in Iraq; and, accordingly, the reality of the potential threat to the region--a region where, obviously, the United States, for 50 years or more, has invested enormous amounts of our diplomatic and even our domestic energy. Press reports of the administration's efforts to intervene in, or at minimum, to influence UNSCOM's inspection process and the resignation of American UNSCOM inspector, Scott Ritter, focused the spotlight briefly on our Iraqi policy and raised some serious and troubling questions about our efforts to eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The principal question raised was a very simple one: Are those efforts still intact, or has our policy changed? Last month, press reports suggested that administration officials had secretly tried to quash aggressive U.N. inspections at various times over the last year, most recently in August, in order to avoid a confrontation with Iraq--this despite repeatedly demanding the unconditional, unfettered accesses that I referred to earlier for the inspection teams. Scott Ritter, the longest serving American inspector in UNSCOM, charged at the time that the administration had intervened at least six or seven times since last November when Iraq tried to thwart UNSCOM's work by refusing to allow Ritter and other Americans to participate on the teams, in an effort to delay or postpone or cancel certain UNSCOM operations out of fear of confrontation with Iraq. Those were serious charges. We held an open hearing, a joint hearing between the Armed Services Committee and Foreign Relations Committee on these charges. There were some protestations to the contrary by the administration and a subsequent effort to ensure that the Security Council would maintain the sanctions against Iraq, but, frankly, nothing more. In explaining his reasons for resigning, Scott Ritter stated that the policy shift in the Security Council supported ``at least implicitly'' by the United States, away from an aggressive inspections policy is a surrender to Iraqi leadership that makes a ``farce'' of the commission's efforts to prove that Iraq is still concealing its chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons programs. Administration officials have categorically rejected the notion that U.S. policy has shifted, either in terms of our willingness to use force or support for UNSCOM. They have also disputed Ritter's charges of repeated U.S. efforts to limit UNSCOM's work. Writing in the New York Times on August 17, Secretary Albright stated that the administration has ``ruled nothing out, including the use of force'' in determining how to respond to Iraqi actions, and that supporting UNSCOM is ``at the heart of U.S. efforts to prevent Saddam Hussein from threatening his neighborhood.'' While acknowledging that she did consult with UNSCOM's Chairman, Richard Butler, after Iraq suspended inspections last month, she argued that he ``came to his own conclusion that it was wiser to keep the focus on Iraq's open defiance of the Security Council.'' Attempting to proceed with the inspections, in her view, would have ``allowed some in the Security Council to muddy the waters by claiming again that UNSCOM had provoked Iraq,'' whereas, not proceeding would give us a ``free hand to use other means'' if Iraq does not ``resume cooperation'' with the Security Council. At that time, she also stressed the importance of maintaining the comprehensive sanctions in place to deny Saddam Hussein the ability to rearm Iraq and thus threaten his neighbors. I appreciate the Secretary's efforts to set the record straight. But, Mr. President, I have to say, in all candor, that I don't think that her op-ed or subsequent statements by the administration have put to rest legitimate questions --legitimate questions or concerns about what our policy is and where it is headed-- not just our policy alone, I might add, but the policy of the United Nations itself, and the policy of our allies in Europe. The fact of the matter is, in my judgment, the U.S. response and that of the Security Council to Saddam Hussein's latest provocations are different in tone and substance from responses to earlier Iraqi provocations. Three times in the last 11 months Saddam Hussein has launched increasingly bolder challenges to UNSCOM's authority and work. In November, he refused to allow American inspectors to participate on the teams. Although that crisis ultimately was resolved through Russian intervention, the United States and Britain were leading the effort to push the Security Council to respond strongly. In subsequent weeks, Saddam Hussein refused to grant UNSCOM access to Presidential palaces and other sensitive cites, kicked out the team that was led by Scott Ritter, charging at the time that he was a CIA spy, and threatened to expel all inspectors unless sanctions were removed by mid-May. By February, the United States had an armada of forces positioned in the gulf, and administration officials from our President on down had declared our intention to use military force if necessary to reduce Iraq's capacity to manufacture, stockpile or reconstitute its weapons of mass destruction, or to threaten its neighbors. Ultimately diplomacy succeeded again. In a sense, it succeeded again. It averted the immediate crisis. One can certainly raise serious questions about how effective it was with respect to the longer-term choices we face. But certainly in the short term, Secretary General Kofi Annan successfully struck an agreement with Iraq to provide UNSCOM inspectors, accompanied by diplomatic representatives, full and unfettered access to all sites. There is little doubt that this agreement would not have been concluded successfully without the Security Council's strong calls for Iraqi compliance combined with the specter of the potential use of American force. Saddam's latest provocation, however, Mr. President, strikes at the heart of our policy, and at the capacity of UNSCOM to do its job effectively. As long as the U.N. inspectors are prevented, as they are, from undertaking random no-notice inspections, they will never be able to confirm the fundamentals of our policy. They will never be able to confirm what weapons Iraq still has or what it is doing to maintain its capability to produce weapons of mass destruction. Yet, when confronted with what may be the most serious challenge to UNSCOM to date, the administration's response, and that of our allies and the United Nations, has been to assiduously avoid brandishing the sword and to make a concerted effort to downplay the offense to avoid confrontation at all costs, even if it means implicit and even explicit backing down on our stated position as well as that of the Security Council. That stated position is clear: That Iraq must provide the U.N. inspectors with unconditional and unfettered access to all sites. Secretary Albright may well be correct in arguing that this course helps keep the focus on Iraq's defiance. It may well do that. But it is also true that the U.N.-imposed limits on UNSCOM operations, especially if they are at the behest of the United States, work completely to Saddam Hussein's advantage. They raise questions of the most serious nature about the preparedness of the international community to keep its own commitment to force Iraq to destroy its weapons of mass destruction, and the much larger question of our overall proliferation commitment itself. They undermine the credibility of the United States and the United Nations position that Iraq comply with the Security Council's demands to provide unconditional and unfettered access to those inspectors. And, obviously, every single one of our colleagues ought to be deeply concerned about the fact that by keeping the inspectors out of the very places that Saddam Hussein wants to prevent them from entering, they substantially weaken UNSCOM's ability to make any accurate determination of Iraq's nuclear, chemical or biological weapons inventory or capability. And in so doing, they open the door for Iraq's allies on the Security Council to waffle on the question of sanctions. I recognize that the Security Council recently voted to keep the sanctions in place and to suspend the sanctions review process. But, Mr. President, notwithstanding that, the less than maximum level of international concern and focus on the underlying fact that no inspections take place, the continuation of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program, and the fact that Saddam Hussein is in complete contravention of his own agreements and of the U.N. requirements--that continues to be the real crisis. And Saddam Hussein continues to refuse to comply. Since the end of the gulf war, the international community has sought to isolate and weaken Iraq through a dual policy of sanctions and weapons inspections. Or, as one administration official said, to put him in a ``box.'' In order to get the sanctions relief, Iraq has to eliminate its weapons of mass destruction and submit to inspections. But it has become painfully apparent over the last 11 months that there are deep divisions within the Security Council particularly among the Permanent 5 members over how to deal with Saddam Hussein's aggressive efforts to break out of the box. Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq's call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. We, on the other hand, have steadfastly insisted that sanctions remain in place until he complies. These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq's weapons capability. For the United States and Britain, an Iraq equipped with nuclear, chemical or biological weapons under the leadership of Saddam Hussein is a threat that almost goes without description, although our current activities seem to call into question whether or not one needs to be reminded of some of that description. Both of these countries have demonstrated a willingness to expend men, material and money to curb that threat. France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously. Given the difference of views within the Security Council, and no doubt the fears of our Arab allies, who are the potential targets of Iraqi aggression, it is really not surprising, or shouldn't be to any of us, that the administration has privately tried to influence the inspection process in a way that might avoid confrontation while other efforts were being made to forge a consensus. But now we have to make a judgment about the failure to reinstate the inspection process and ask ourselves whether or not that will destroy the original ``box'' that the administration has defined as so essential to carrying out our policy. Is it possible that there is a sufficient lack of consensus and a lack of will that will permit Saddam Hussein to exploit the differences among the members of the Security Council and to create a sufficient level of sanctions fatigue that we would in fact move further away from the policy we originally had? To the extent that his efforts are successful, we will find ourselves increasingly isolated within the Security Council. In fact, it is already clear that some of our allies in the Security Council are very open to the Iraqi idea of a comprehensive review of its performance in dismantling all of its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons--a review which Iraq hopes will lead to a lifting of some if not all of the sanctions. I think the question needs to be asked as to how long we can sustain our insistence on the maintenance of sanctions if support for sanctions continues to erode within the Security Council. If it is indeed true that support is eroding--and there are great indicators that, given the current lack of confrontation, it is true--then the question remains, How will our original policy be affected or in fact is our original policy still in place? In April, Secretary Albright stated that, ``It took a threat of force to persuade Saddam Hussein to let the U.N. inspectors back in. We must maintain that threat if the inspectors are to do their jobs.'' That was the policy in April. Whether the administration is still prepared to use force to compel Iraqi compliance is now an enormous question. The Secretary says it is, but the recent revelations raise questions about that. In addition, it seems to me that there are clear questions about whether or not the international community at this point in time is as committed as it was previously to the question of keeping Iraq from developing that capacity to rob its neighbors of tranquility through its unilateral development of a secret weapon program. In May, India and Pakistan, despite all of our exhortations, conducted nuclear tests. In August, U.S. intelligence reports indicated that North Korea is building a secret underground nuclear facility, and last month North Korea tested a new 1,250-mile-range ballistic missile which landed in the Sea of Japan. Each and every one of these events raises the ante on international proliferation efforts and should cause the Senate and the Congress as a whole and the administration, in my judgment, to place far greater emphasis and energy on this subject. If the United States and the United Nations retreat in any way on Iraq, if we are prepared to accept something less than their full compliance with the international inspection requirement that has been in place now for 7 years, it will be difficult to understand how we will have advanced the cause of proliferation in any of those other areas that I just mentioned. Mr. President, over the years, a consensus has developed within the international community that the production and use of weapons of mass destruction has to be halted. We and others worked hard to develop arms control regimes toward that end, but obviously Saddam Hussein's goal is to do otherwise. Iraq and North Korea and others have made it clear that they are still trying, secretly and otherwise, to develop those weapons. The international consensus on the need to curb the production and use of weapons of mass destruction is widespread, but it is far from unanimous, and, as the divisions within the Security Council over Iraq indicate, some of our key allies simply don't place the same priority on proliferation as we do. The proliferation of weapons, be they conventional or of mass destruction, remains one of the most significant issues on the international agenda. Obviously, solutions won't come easily. But I am convinced that in the case of Iraq, our failure would set the international community's nonproliferations efforts back enormously. Our allies need to understand that the ramifications of letting Saddam Hussein out of the box that we put him in with respect to inspections would be serious and far-reaching. So I believe we need to keep the pressure on them to stand firm, to stand firm with us, and unless we reassert our leadership and insist that Iraq allow those inspectors to do their job, we will have destroyed a number of years of our effort in ways, Mr. President, that we will regret in our policy for the long haul. I would point out also that there are experts on Iraq, those in the inspections team, those at the U.N. and elsewhere in our international community, who are very clear that Saddam Hussein's first objective is not to lift the sanctions. His first objective is to keep Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program--that will come ahead of all else. The situation is really far more serious than the United Nations, the Congress or the administration have made clear to the American people or demonstrated through the level of diplomacy and focus that is currently being placed on this issue. It is not simply about eliminating Saddam Hussein's capacity to threaten his neighbors. It is about eliminating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, and nuclear. Failure to achieve this goal will have a profound impact, I believe, on our efforts with respect to our other nonproliferation efforts including completion of our talks with Russia and the ultimate ratification of the START II treaty by the Duma. In recent conversations that I had with Chairman Butler, he confirmed that Saddam Hussein has only this one goal--keeping his weapons of mass destruction capability--and he further stated with clarity that Iraq is well out of compliance with U.N. resolutions requiring it to eliminate those weapons and submit to inspections and out of compliance with the agreement that he signed up to in February with Kofi Annan. Mr. President, I believe there are a number of things we could do, a number of things both in covert as well as overt fashion. There is more policy energy that ought to be placed on this effort, and I believe that, as I have set forth in my comments, it is critical for us to engage in that effort, to hold him accountable. In February, when we had an armada positioned in the gulf, President Clinton said that ``one way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.'' The fact is, Mr. President, over these last months there has been precious little to prevent Saddam Hussein from developing that capacity without the inspectors there and without the unwavering determination of the United Nations to hold him accountable. So the question still stands, What is our policy and what are we prepared to do about it? Mr. President, I had asked to speak also on another topic for a moment. I see my colleague from New Mexico is here. Let me ask him what his intentions might be now and maybe we can work out an agreement.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, countless hours will be spent in this country, and even on this Senate floor, debating the issues that today fill the front pages of our newspapers. Some of the talk titillates, some of it disgusts--and Mr. President, it's clear that some of it requires the very serious attention of this Senate. But the tribulations of public life in America today do not provide us sufficient excuses for inaction when it comes to addressing the crises in this country that don't make the front pages, but should. And there can be no excuses for any of us--or for anyone in this country-- for our failure to do something to help the 50 million children in our public schools today--children whose reading scores show that of 2.6 million graduating high school students, one-third are below basic reading level, one-third are at basic, only one-third are proficient and only 100,000 are at a world class reading level; children who edge out only South Africa and Cyprus on international tests in science and math, with 29 percent of all college freshmen requiring remedial classes in basic skills. Mr. President, we know that public education is in trouble--so much trouble that some argue it could implode from the weight and pressure of bloated bureaucracy, stagnant administration and inadequate classroom resources. These statistics speak not just of a crisis--they speak of our collective failure to come together and do what it takes to give every child in this country a real chance at success. We are stuck both nationally and locally--unable or unwilling to answer the challenge, trapped in a debate that is little more than an echo of old and irrelevant positions with promising solutions stymied by ideology and interest groups--both on the right and on the left. Nowhere more than in the venerable United States Senate, where we pride ourselves on our ability to work together across partisan lines, we have been stuck in a place where Democrats and Republicans seem to talk past each other. Democrats are perceived to be always ready to throw money at the problem but never for sufficient accountability or creativity; Republicans are perceived as always ready to give a voucher to go somewhere else but rarely supportive of investing sufficient resources to make the public schools work. It's the reason why we spent weeks debating a bill this past spring--the major elementary and secondary education legislation of this 105th Congress--that would put $7 into the pocket of the average public school student in this country--and we called that reform. No wonder parents are losing faith in our ability to reform public education. No wonder they're looking elsewhere: in too many of our debates, whichever side wins, on whichever bill, our children continue to be the losers. We all need to change that outcome and I respectfully suggest there is a different road we can meet on to make it happen. That is why I will be introducing in the next Senate the kind of comprehensive education reform legislation that I believe will provide us a chance to come together not as Democrats and Republicans, but as the true friends of parents, children, teachers, and principals--to come together as citizens--and help our schools reclaim the promise of public education in this country. We need to ask one question: ``What provides our children with the best education?'' And whether the answer is conservative, liberal, or simply practical, we need to commit ourselves to that course. As we being to chart that new course, I would remind this body of a conviction shared by all of us: no one in America wants the federal government trespassing on a cherished local prerogative. But the federal government can and should leverage resources to schools everywhere; it can help teachers, parents, administrators, and community leaders take up the work they all agree is so badly needed. To say that there is no federal role in education is to call upon the federal government to abandon 50 million children. I believe this Senate will reject that notion and accept instead legislation to help every school make a new start on their own, an invitation to all parties in the name of saving public education in America. My bill will be built on challenge grants for schools to pursue comprehensive reform and adopt the proven best practices of any other school funds to help every school become an accountable charter school within the public school system; the incentives to make choice and competition a hallmark of our school systems; and the resources to help schools fix their crumbling infrastructure, get serious about crime, end social promotion, restore a sense of community to our schools, and send children to school ready to learn. My legislation will begin the Voluntary State Reform Incentive Grants so school districts that choose to finance and implement comprehensive reform based on proven high-performance models can bring forth change. We will target investments at school districts below the national or state median and leverage local dollars through matching grants. This component of the legislation will aim to make every public school in this country essentially a charter school within the public school system--giving them the chance to quickly and easily put in place the best of what works in any other school--private, parochial or public-- with decentralized control, site-based management, parental engagement, and high levels of volunteerism--while at the same time meeting high standards of student achievement and public accountability. I believe public schools need to have the chance to make changes not tomorrow, not five years from now, not after another study--but now--today. And my legislation will help us restore accountability to public education by injecting choice and competition into a public school system badly in need of both. We are not a country that believes in monopolies. We are a country that believes diversity raises quality. We wouldn't accept one source, one company, one choice of food, or clothing or cable television. It is time we end a system that restricts each child to an administrator's choice and not a parent's choice where possible. It is time we adopt a competitive system of public school choice with grants awarded to schools that meet parents' test of quality and assistance to schools that must catch up rapidly. That is why I'll be proposing that we create an incentive for schools all across the nation to adopt public school choice to the extent logistically feasible. So if schools will embrace this new framework--every school a charter school in the public school system, choice, competition, and accountability--what then are the key ingredients of their excellence? My legislation will allow our schools to strip away the bureaucracy that stifles creativity and remember that what counts in any public school is how our students fare academically. You don't identify a good school by the number of administrators you hire. In fact, we impose so many rules and regulations on our schools ``from above'' that we forget teaching happens ``on the ground''--in a school building, in a classroom. But you won't find accountability there because it's been fractured and scattered in hundreds of different offices and titles. We need to restore leadership and accountability and put our faith in our principals--holding them accountable for the way their teachers teach and the way ultimately, their students learn. That means we need to do better in guaranteeing that every one of our nation's 80,000 principals have the capacity to lead--the talents and the know-how to do the job; effective leadership skills; the vision to create an effective team--to recruit, hire, and transfer teachers and engage parents. Without those abilities, the title of principal and the freedom to lead means little. I'll be proposing an ``Excellent Principals Challenge Grant'' which would provide funds to local school districts to train principals in sound management skills and effective classroom practices. This bill helps our schools make being a principal the great calling of our time. But as we set our sights on recruiting a new generation of effective principals, we must acknowledge what today's best principals know: principals can only produce results as good as the teachers with whom they must work. To get the best results, we need the best teachers. And we must act immediately to guarantee that we get the best as the United States hires 2 million new teachers in the next ten years, 60% of them in the next five years. I will be offering legislation that empowers our states and school districts to find new ways to hire and train outstanding teachers: a Teacher Recruitment Incentive Grant, to raise teachers' salaries and attract a larger group of qualified people into the teaching profession; a Ongoing Education Grant to provide continued training for our nation's teachers. This legislation will allow states to reconfigure their certification policies and their teaching standards to address the reality that our standards for teachers are not high enough--and at the same time, they are too rigid in setting out irrelevant requirements that don't make teaching better; they make it harder for some who choose to teach. We know we need to streamline teacher certification rules in this country to recruit the best college graduates to teach in the United States. Today we hire almost exclusively education majors to teach, and liberal arts graduates are only welcomed in our country's top private schools. My legislation will allow states to rewrite the rules so every principal has the same right as headmasters at private schools--to hire liberal arts graduates as teachers and measure their competency; while at the same time allowing hundreds of thousands more teachers to achieve a more broad based meaningful certification--the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards certification with its rigorous test of subject matter knowledge and teaching ability. My legislation will build a new teacher recruitment system for our public schools--providing college scholarships for our highest achieving high school graduates if they agree to come back and teach in our public schools. I hope to build support for this legislation around the consensus that we share a common obligation to build a system where every principal and every teacher in every school can be held accountable. Every parent wants that; every child deserves it. And we should all be held accountable if we are unwilling to make those changes. But I also hope to build a consensus in this Senate that recognizes that you can't hold someone accountable if they don't have the tools to succeed. I also want to help our schools close the resource gap in public education: helping to fix our crumbling schools with a federal tax credit so that 5,000 school districts can rebuild and modernize their buildings; helping to eliminate the crime that turns too many hallways and classrooms into areas of violence by giving school districts incentives to write discipline codes and create ``Second Chance'' schools with a range of alternatives for chronically disruptive and violent students--everything from short-term in-school crisis centers, to medium duration in-school suspension rooms, to high quality off- campus alternatives; helping every child come to school ready to learn by funding successful, local early childhood development efforts; and making schools the hubs of our communities once more by providing support for after school programs where students receive tutoring, mentoring, and values-based education--the kind of programs that are open to entire communities, making public schools truly public. Mr. President, I am not just asking Democrats and Republicans to meet where our students are and where our children are educated. I will be offering legislation that helps us do it, that forces not just a debate, but a vote--yes or no, up or down, change or more of the same. Together we can embrace new rights and responsibilities on both sides of the ideological divide and admit that the answer to the crisis of public education is not found in one concept alone--in private school vouchers or bricks and mortar alone. We can find answers for our children by breaking with the past in every respect--breaking with the instinct for the symbolic, and especially the notion that a speech here and there will make education better in this country. It can't and won't. But our hard work together in the coming year--Democrats and Republicans together--can make a difference. Education reform can work in a bi-partisan way. We know that Congressman Obey and Porter in the House have succeeded in establishing promising demonstration projects on comprehensive reform--they know this isn't a partisan issue. And there is no shortage of good ideas or leadership here in the Senate-- tireless leadership from Senator Moseley-Braun on the question of crumbling schools; bi-partisan creativity from Senator Coats and Senator Lieberman with regard to charter schools; and the leadership and passion, of course, of the senior Senator from my state, Senator Kennedy, who has led the fight in this Senate to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and has provided this body with over 30 years of unrivaled leadership and support for education. I have already begun talking about this legislation with colleagues from both sides of the aisle and the response thus far has been positive. Today I will release a detailed outline of the legislative proposals I am developing, and I look forward to working with all of my colleagues here in the Senate to shape legislation that we can all support--bold legislation that sends the message--finally--to parents and children struggling to find schools that work, and to teachers and principals struggling in schools simultaneously bloated with bureaucracy and starved for resources--to prove to them not just that we hear their cries for help, but that we will respond not with sound bites and salvos, but with real answers. Mr. President, I ask a brief summary of my education plan be printed in the Record. The summary follows: A Plan to Educate America's Children title i--voluntary state reform incentive grants If education reform is to succeed in America's public schools, we must demand nothing less than a comprehensive reform effort. The best public school districts are simultaneously embracing a host of approaches to educating our children: high standards and accountability, sufficient resources, small class sizes, quality teachers, motivated students, effective principals, and engaged parents and community leaders. We must not be half-hearted in our efforts to make reform feasible for every school in this country. We cannot address only one challenge in education and ignore the rest. We must make available the tools for real comprehensive reform so that every aspect of public education functions better and every element of our system is stronger. So let us now turn to a bold answer: Let's make every public school in this country essentially a charter school within the public school system. Let's give every school the chance to quickly and easily put in place the best of what works in any other school--private, parochial or public--with decentralized control, site-based management, parental engagement, and real accountability. Several schools across the country have devised ways to accomplish this by raising standards to improve student achievement, lowering class size, improving on-going education for teachers, and reducing unnecessary middle-level bureaucracy. Numerous high-performance school designs have also been created such as the Modern Red Schoolhouse program, the Success for All program, and the new American Schools program. The results of extensive evaluations of these programs have shown that these designs are successful in raising student achievement. Studies show that these many of these successful programs cost less than the national median of basic education revenues per pupil for K-12 school districts. If we brought all schools up to the spending level of the national median, all schools could finance these high- performance school designs. Therefore, we should raise spending to the state or the national median, whichever is higher, thereby allowing every school district to finance and implement comprehensive reform based on proven high-performance models and teach students to the highest standards (58 percent of school districts are below either the national or their state median). Although money alone will not solve the problems in poor school districts, it is impossible to solve without adequate resources. Rather than piecemeal, fragmented approaches to reform, the Comprehensive School Reform program is intended to foster coherent schoolwide improvements that cover virtually all aspects of a school's operations. To ensure that the vast majority of school districts could engage in comprehensive school reform, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) should also be fully funded. Title I is the primary federal help for local districts to provide assistance to poor students in basic math and reading skills. Title I currently provides help to local school districts for additional staff and resources for reading and math, curriculum improvements, smaller classes, and training poor students' parents to help their children learn to read and do math. However, Title I only reaches two- thirds of poor students because of inadequate funding. Since 90 percent of school districts receive at least some Title I funds, fully funding Title I and allowing school districts to use these additional funds for comprehensive reforms would give schools the ability to implement comprehensive reforms so that all students reach the highest academic standards. Most poor school districts lack the resources to meet the vital educational needs of all of their students. A well- crafted program with the federal and state governments working in close cooperation with one another could make major studies in closing these gaps and improving student performance. Comprehensive school reform will help raise student achievement by assisting public schools across the country to implement effective, comprehensive school reforms that are based on proven, research-based models. No new federal bureaucracy would be established--the program would be implemented at the state level. Furthermore, no funds could be used to increase the school bureaucracy. School districts would implement a comprehensive school reform program and evaluate and measure results achieved. Schools would also provide high-quality and continuous teacher and staff professional development and training, have measurable goals for student performance and benchmarks for meeting those goals, provide for meaningful involvement of parents and the local community in planning and implementing school improvement, and identify how other available federal, state, local, or private resources will be utilized to coordinate services to support and sustain the school reform effort. The funding for the program would move towards the goal of providing every school district in the country enough funds to implement a high quality, performance-based model of comprehensive school reform at a cost of $4,270. This would mean providing enough funds to bring every district up to the state or the national median, whichever is higher (it is estimated that $30 billion annually would be needed to bring the per-pupil expenditure of every school district up to the national or state average). To move towards this goal, the federal government would provide funds and states would match this money (states would provide 10 to 20 percent with poorer states providing a smaller match). To receive these funds, states would have to provide a minimum spending effort based on state and local school spending relative to the state's per capita income. Funding would be $250 million in FY99, $500 million in FY2000, $750 million in FY2001, $1 billion in FY2002 and $4 billion in FY2003. Fully fund Title I so almost all school districts would receive some funds to implement compressive school reform (90 percent of all local school districts receive Title funds). Funding would be $200 million in FY99, $400 million in FY2000, $600 Million in FY2001, $1 billion in FY202, and $4 billion in FY2003. Title II--Ensure That Children Begin School Ready To Learn Recent scientific evidence conclusively demonstrates that enhancing children's physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development will result in tremendous benefits. Many local communities across the country have developed successful early childhood efforts and with additional resources could expand and enhance opportunities for young children. We must enhance private, local, and state early successful support programs for young children by providing resources to expand and/or initiate successful efforts for at-risk children from birth to age six. Provide funds to States to make grants to local early childhood development collaboratives. States would fund parent education and home visiting classes and have great flexibility to decide whether to also support quality child care, helping schools stay open later for early childhood development activities, or health services for young children. Communities would be required to document their unmet needs and how they would use the funds to improve outcomes for young children so they begin school ready to learn. Funding would be $100 million in FY99, $200 million in FY2000, $300 million in FY2001, $400 million in FY2002, and $1 billion in FY2002. Title III--Excellent Principals Challenge Grant Principals face long hours, high stress, and too little pay. To overcome these obstacles, principals in successful schools must have effective leadership skills. However, too few principals get the training they need in management skills to ensure their school provides an excellent education for every child. Attracting, training, and retaining excellent principals is essential to helping every local school district become world class. Establish a grant program to states to provide funds to local school districts to attract and to provide professional development for elementary and secondary school principals. Activities would include developing management and business skills, knowledge of effective instructional skills and practices, learning about educational technology, etc. Funding would be $20 million per year. States and local school districts would contribute 25 percent of the total although poor school districts would be exempt from the match. Title IV--Establish ``Second Chance'' Schools for Troubled Students Parents, students, and educators know that serious school reform cannot succeed without an orderly and safe learning environment. The few students who are unwilling or unable to comply with discipline codes and make learning impossible for the other students need behavior management programs and high quality alternative placements. Suspending or expelling chronically disruptive or violent students is not effective in the long run since these students will fall behind in school and may cause additional trouble since they are frequently completely unsupervised; these students need alternative placements that provide supervision, remediation of behavior and maintenance of academic progress. Although some may resist this program for fear that it will be used to isolate disabled students, the purpose is to provide additional interventions for troubled students, not to change disciplinary actions against disabled students. Add a new title to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) to establish a competitive state grant program for school districts to establish ``Second Chance'' programs. To receive the funds school districts must enact district-wide discipline codes which use clear language with specific examples of behaviors that will result in disciplinary action and have every student and parent sign the code. Additionally, schools may use the funds to promote effective classroom management; provide training for school staff and administrators in enforcement of the code; implement programs to modify student behavior including hiring school counselors; and establish high quality alternative placements for chronically disruptive and violent students that include a continuum of alternatives from meeting with behavior management specialists, to short-term in-school crisis centers, to medium duration in-school suspension rooms, to off-campus alternatives. Funding would be $100 million per year and distributed to states through the Title I formula. Title V--Teacher Recruitment and On-going Education Incentive Grant Approximately 61,000 first-time teachers begin in our nation's public schools each year. Since the average starting salary for teachers is a little more than $21,000 per year, we need to raise their compensation to attract a larger group of qualified people into the teaching profession. Since the average student loan debt of students graduating college who borrowed money for college is $9,068, the most effective way to provide federal assistance to states to raise teachers' salaries is to provide loan forgiveness. In addition, scholarships ought to be available to the most talented high school students in every state in return for a commitment to teach in our public schools (North Carolina has successfully recruited future teachers from within public high schools with the lure of college scholarships). States would be given funds to provide poor school districts the ability to raise teacher salaries to attract and retain the best teachers. Funding would be provided through the Title I ``targeted grant'' formula (the minimum threshold would be 20% poor children or 20,000 poor children). Funding would be $500 million for FY 99, $500 million in FY 2000, $1 billion in FY 2001, $1 billion in FY 2002, and $2 billion in FY 2003. Additionally, full-time state certified public school teachers who teach in low- income areas or who teach in areas with teacher shortages such as math, science, and special needs would have 20 percent of their student loans forgiven after two years of teaching, an additional 20 percent after three years, an additional 30 percent after four years, and the remaining 30 percent after five years. The program would be funded at $50 million each year. Finally, an additional $10 million would be provided as grants to states that wish to provide signing bonuses for first-time teachers who teach in low-income areas or areas with teacher shortages. Provide $10 million in grants for states to establish a program to provide college scholarships to the top 20 percent of SAT achievers or grade point average in each state's high school graduating class in return for a commitment to become a state certified teacher for five years. States would contribute 20 percent of the funds for the scholarships. Five percent of the total funds could be used by local school districts to hire staff to recruit at the top liberal arts, education, and technical colleges (districts would be encouraged to establish a central regional recruiting office to pool their resources). One percent of the total funds would be used by the Secretary of Education to create a national hotline for potential teachers to receive information on a career in teaching. Title VI--Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants We need to provide on-going education in teaching skills and academic content knowledge, establish or expand alternative routes to state certification, and establish or expand mentoring programs for prospective teachers by veteran teachers (according to the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future, beginning teachers who have had the continuous support of a skilled mentor are more likely to stay in the profession). Establish Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants, a competitive grant awarded to states to improve teaching. The grants would have a matching requirement and must be used to institute state-level reforms to ensure that current and future teachers possess the necessary teaching skills and academic content knowledge in the subject areas they are assigned to teach. In addition, establish Teacher Training Partnership Grants, designed to encourage reform at the local level to improve teacher training. One of the uses of these funds would be for states to establish, expand, or improve alternative routes to state certification for highly qualified individuals from other occupations such as business executives and recent college graduates with records of academic distinction. Another use would be to mentor prospective teachers by veteran teachers. Provide $100 million per year for these new teacher training programs so that states can improve teacher quality, establish or expand alternative routes to state certification for new teachers, and mentor new teachers by veteran teachers. Title VII--Invest in Community-based Schools and Community Service As many as five million children are home alone after school each week. Most juvenile involvement in crime--either committing crime or becoming victims themselves--occurs between 3 p.m. and 8 p.m. Children who attend quality after- school programs, however, tend to do better in school, get along better with their peers, and are less likely to engage in delinquent behavior. Expansion of both school-based and community-based after-school programs will provide safe, developmentally appropriate environments for children and help communities reduce the incidents of juvenile delinquency and crime. In addition, many states and localities such as Maryland and the Chicago public school system require high school students to perform community service to receive a high school diploma. The real world experience helps prepare students for work and instills a sense of civic duty. Expand the 21st Century Learning Centers Act by providing $400 million each fiscal year to help communities provide after-school care. Grantees will be required to offer expanded learning opportunities for children and youth in the community. Funds could be used by school districts to provide: literacy programs; integrated education, health, social service, recreational or cultural programs; summer and weekend school programs; nutrition and health programs; expanded library services, telecommunications and technology education programs; services for individuals with disabilities; job skills assistance; mentoring; academic assistance; and drug, alcohol and gang prevention activities. Provide $10 million in grants to states that have established or chose to establish a state-wide or a district- wide program that requires high school students to perform community service to receive a high school diploma. States would determine what constitutes community service, the number of hours required, and whether to exempt some low- income students who hold full-time jobs while attending school full-time. The grants would be matched dollar for dollar with half of the match coming from the state and local education agencies and half coming from the private sector. Title VIII--Expand the National Board Certification Program For Teachers The National Board for Professional Teaching Standards, which is headed by Gov. Jim Hunt, established rigorous standards and assessments for certifyuing accomplished teaching. To pass the exam and be certified, teachers must demonstrate their knowledge and skills through a series of performance-based assessments which include teaching portfolios, student work samples, videotapes and rigorous analyses of their classroom teaching and student learning. Additionally, teachers must take written tests of their subject-matter knowledge and their understanding of how to teach those subjects to their students. The National Board certification is offered to teachers on a voluntary basis and complements but does not replace state licensing. The National Commission on Teaching for America's Future called for a goal of 105,000 board certified teachers by the year 2006 (since the exam began recently, only about 2,000 teachers are currently board certified). Since the exam costs $2,000, many teachers are currently unable to afford it. Provide $189 million over five years so that states have enough money to provide a 90% subsidy for the National Board certification of 105,000 teachers across the country. Title IX--Help Communities to Modernize America's Schools More than 14 million children in America attend schools in need of extensive repair or replacement. According to a comprehensive survey by the General Accounting Office (GAO) requested by Senator Moseley-Braun, Sentor Kerry and others, the repair backlog totals $112 billion. Researchers at Georgetown University found that the performance of students assigned to schools in poor condition fall by 10.9 percentage points below those in buildings in excellent condition. To help rebuild modernize, and build over 5,000 public schools, provide federal tax credits to school districts to pay interest on nearly $22 billion in bonds at a cost of $5 billion over five years. Title X--Encourage Public School Choice Many public schools have implemented public school choice programs where students may enroll at any public school in the public school system. In contrast to vouchers for private schools, public school choice increases options for students but does not use public funds to finance private schools which remain entirely unaccountable to taxpayers. Provide $20 million annually in grants to states that choose to implement public school choice programs. School districts could spend the funds on transportation and other services to implement a successful public school choice program. Up to 10 percent of the funds may be spent by a school district to improve low performing school districts that lose students due to the public school choice program.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I have a very simple proposition for the Senate. Let's close an accidental tax loophole for the heirs of people who leave estates worth more than $17 million and use the savings to help self-employed Americans--like the thousands of entrepreneurs on Nebraska's farms and ranches--afford the soaring cost of health care. Today I am submitting legislation to accomplish that purpose. The facts are very simple. Prior to 1997, when we passed the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement, the first $600,000 of an estate was excluded from taxes. The old law gradually phased out this exclusion once an estate reached $17 million. The 1997 Act increases the value of an estate not subject to taxes. But a drafting error in the 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement failed to include the accompanying phase out of the exclusion on estates over $17 million. Clearly this error needs to be fixed. Letting this mistake stand uncorrected will cost the American taxpayers nearly $900 million over the next ten years. To give you an idea of how much this provision does to benefit the few, consider that in 1995, the Internal Revenue Service estimates that just 300 tax returns were filed on estates over $20 million. Congress had the opportunity to correct this error during consideration of the IRS Reform bill this year. Regrettably, the objections of a few to making this right overcame the support of the many for doing so. Meanwhile, Mr. President, self-employed Americans are struggling to cope with the rising cost of health insurance, which they--unlike Americans employed by others--cannot fully deduct from their taxable income. The face of their struggle is most evident on farms and ranches. In Nebraska, producers are facing plunging commodity prices at the same time they face soaring costs of living, especially for health insurance. Today they can deduct 40 percent of the cost of their insurance. Under current law, they cannot fully deduct that cost until 2007. So, my proposal is simple. Let's close the loophole that everyone admits was an accident, and use that money to accelerate the full deductibility of health insurance for the self-employed. It's a clear choice between a loophole that nobody wanted to exist and entrepreneurs who--especially those on our farms and ranches--may not exist much longer if we don't get them some help. While I recognize time is short for passing this bill this year, I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation and in pursuing this goal next year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I'd like to take a moment to express my strong support for S. 442, the Internet Tax Freedom Act. In my view, S. 442 is a necessary first step to ensure that the Internet remains user-friendly to persons and businesses who seek to use it as a primary forum in which to conduct commerce. Before I begin, I'd like to credit my colleague from Oregon, Senator Wyden, for his hard work on this legislation and for his longtime and pioneering leadership on Internet issues, both when he was in the House and now as a member of the Commerce Committee in the Senate. I'd also like to thank Senator McCain for his steadfastness and determination in ensuring that this important legislation is considered by the full Senate. The Internet holds great promise to expand prosperity and bring ever more Americans into the national economy. In the past, to open a store and sell goods to the public, a merchant needed to find a good location for a storefront, build-out the store front, maintain its interior, pay rent and deal with myriad other business and legal concerns. All of these actions consume time and often scarce resources. To many Americans, they present an unreachably high bar to starting or maintaining a business. The Internet will allow millions of Americans to sell goods and services online, and will dispense with many of the burdensome costs involved with starting and maintaining a business. One great impediment, however, to the evolution of commerce over the Internet is the immediate threat of both disparate taxing jurisdictions and inequitable taxation. A product offered over the Internet can be purchased by anyone with a computer and a modem, regardless of the town or state in which the person lives. Imagine needing to know the tax consequences of selling to each of the thousands of taxing jurisdictions in the country as a prerequisite to starting a business. This problem becomes even more complex if states and localities begin to impose taxes on electronic transactions or transmissions as such, in addition to sales, use and other taxes. This legislation attempts to reasonably address this concern by imposing a brief moratorium specifically on the inequitable taxation of electronic commerce. It will allow the federal government, the states, the Internet industry and Main Street businesses a brief time-out to rationally discuss the several issues involved in Internet taxation and to develop a reasonable approach to taxation which permits electronic commerce to thrive in America. In my view, the legislation does not seek to deprive states of needed tax revenue. Senators Wyden and McCain have gone to great lengths to minimize those existing taxes that would be affected. In addition, the bill expressly grandfathers existing state taxes on Internet access. What the bill does, however, is attempt to ensure that the development of the Internet is not hampered by a hodge-podge of confusing state and local taxes. This bill was carefully negotiated to address competing equities. States and localities certainly have very real and legitimate needs to raise revenue to support vital state and community functions. By the same token, the Internet and the promise it holds for our economy, for schools, for children and families, and for our democracy is also very compelling. It is a wholly new medium whose mechanics, subtleties and nuances few of us really understand. I do not hear any Senator stating that electronic commerce should never be the basis of tax revenue, and I do not believe any Senator is trying to permanently deprive states of inherent privileges. Instead, the bill strives to create a brief period during which we in government and those in business can attempt to better understand this new medium and create a sensible policy that permits the medium to flourish as we all want. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the VA-HUD Appropriations bill. I thank Chairman Bond and Senator Mikulski for their success in bringing this bill to the floor with such widespread support. Balancing the many competing needs in an appropriations bill is never an easy task, and Senators Bond and Mikulski and all of the other conferees should be proud of the work they have done. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development, I am particularly pleased with the appropriations for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations for HUD is the agency's best in the past 10 years. Roughly $2 billion more has been appropriated for Fiscal Year 1999 than was made available in 1998. These gains would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of Secretary Cuomo, who delivered a strong and thoughtful budget request to the appropriators last January. The Fiscal Year 1999 HUD appropriations bill symbolizes a renewed commitment to meet our nation's severe housing shortages. Today, only about one out of every 4 households in need of housing assistance receives it. Of the roughly 12 million families that need housing assistance but do not receive it, almost half have worst case housing needs. These families are paying more than half of their incomes every month in rent, or live in physically substandard Housing, or both. The appropriations bill will help address this need by funding 50,000 new section 8 vouchers, many of which will be targeted to people moving from welfare to work. These vouchers establish a crucial link between housing and employment opportunities, while simultaneously helping those who are making a concerted effort to get off of welfare assistance. They are important tools whose significance cannot be overstated given the uncertainty of welfare reform. Furthermore, this bill changes current law so that housing authorities no longer have to hold off on reissuing vouchers and certificates for a period of three months upon turnover. Repealing this delay will provide section 8 vouchers to as many as 40,000 more low-income families each year. I commend the appropriators for recognizing the need for this resource, and implementing this important change. The conference report also reaffirms our nation's commitment to homeownership by expanding the FHA single family mortgage insurance program. We are currently seeing record levels of homeownership in this country, and HUD should take great pride in this accomplishment. But not all of those who qualify for homeownership are afforded an opportunity to purchase a home in the neighborhood of their choice. The Fiscal Year 1999 appropriations bill will help address this inequity by raising the FHA loan limits in both high cost urban areas and lower cost rural areas. These new loan limits will enable roughly 17,000 additional families to become homeowners each year. The conferees are also to be commended for increasing the levels of funding for a number of important HUD programs. Funding for the CDBG program, the HOME program, the public Housing capital fund, the HOPE VI program, the homeless assistance fund, Fair Housing initiatives, HOPWA, Housing for Elderly and Disabled, and the Lead Hazard Abatement program have been significantly increased for Fiscal Year 1999. These funding levels, many of which are higher than the Administration's request, demonstrate the appropriators' commitment to supporting housing and economic development initiatives despite other competing needs contained in this appropriations bill. I am especially pleased that the appropriators have chosen to fund the Youthbuild program at $42.5 million for Fiscal Year 1999--$7.5 million over what was enacted in 1998. Youthbuild, which I helped pass into law, provides on-site training in construction skills, as well as off-site academic and job skill lessons, to at-risk youth between the ages of 16 and 24. Approximately 7,300 young people have participated in Youthbuild programs to date, and many more-at-risk youth will be able to benefit in the future from the increased resources that have been devoted to this program. Mr. President, I would also like to express my support for the public housing reform act which was attached to the conference report. As ranking member of the Subcommittee on Housing Opportunity and Community Development, I have worked closely with Senator Mack, Senator Sarbanes, Secretary Cuomo, Representative Kennedy and Representative Lazio to develop this compromise measure. I am very proud of the final product. The public housing reform act successfully achieves a delicate balance: it deregulates public housing authorities while simultaneously requiring them to better the lives of the residents they serve. For instance, the reform measure permanently repeals Federal preferences, which had the unintended consequence of concentrating poverty in public housing developments. The bill allows PHAs to develop their own preferences, including a preference for working families, but requires that at least 40 percent of all public housing units and 75 percent of all section 8 units that become available each year be provided to people making below 30 percent of area median income. These protections, which I fought very hard for on the Senate floor and which are better than current law, will benefit residents at all income levels by facilitating the creation of mixed income developments. The value of mixed income developments cannot be overstated. Working families stabilize communities by offering hope and opportunity in environments of despair. In recognition of this important principle, the reform bill will require housing authorities to develop plans for the economic desegregation of their distressed communities. Each PHA must develop their plan in consultation with its residents, and all plans will be submitted to HUD for approval. The economic desegregation plan was incorporated into the bill at the strong urging of Secretary Cuomo, and I am confident that HUD officials will be committed to making this provision work. The Reform Act eliminates many burdensome requirements for housing authorities. One-for-one replacement rules, which prevented PHAs from demolishing vacant public housing projects and building lower density developments, have been repealed. Total development costs have been revised to allow housing authorities to construct more viable communities. And PHAs will be permitted to use their Federal funds in a more flexible manner, including investment in mixed finance developments that attract private capital. But with this freedom comes a new responsibility: housing authorities must involve residents in the decisions that will affect their lives. The Reform Act will empower residents in important ways. They will sit on PHA boards, they will participate in the PHA planning process, and they will be offered greater opportunity to manage their own developments or solicit alternative management entities. Other provisions in the public housing reform act will benefit residents more directly. For instance, the bill includes a mandatory earned income disregard so that public housing residents who are unemployed, or who have been on welfare assistance, will not be charged any additional rent for a one year period after finding a job. The bill permits and encourages PHAs to establish escrow accounts for residents--accounts which residents can use to fund homeownership activities, moving expenses, education expenses, or other self sufficiency initiatives. The bill also retains the Tenant Opportunity Program as a separately funded grant program, and mandates that at least 25 percent of available funds under this program be distributed directly to qualified resident organizations. The public housing bill also makes a real commitment to expanding homeownership opportunities for low income Americans. PHAs will now be permitted to use a portion of their capital funds in support of homeownership activities for public housing residents, and families can now use their Section 8 vouchers to help cover the cost of mortgage payments. In short, the Public Housing Reform Act will go a long way towards improving the lives of the millions of Americans who are receiving Federal housing assistance. It is a nice complement to the funding increases contained in the rest of the VA-HUD bill--increases which will help many more Americans who are in dire need of housing assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to show their support for both of these important initiatives by voting in favor of the VA-HUD conference report.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last Thursday, Meg Donovan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Legislative Affairs, passed away after a painful struggle with cancer. Her death, far too early at age 47, has dimmed the light for all those who loved and knew her: her husband, Stephen Duffy, her three children Colin, Liam and Emma, her father, Daniel Donovan, her sisters, Paula and Mary Ellen, her brother, Patrick, and her many friends and colleagues in Washington. Meg was a Washington veteran, having worked in the nongovernmental affair community for the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, in the Congress for nearly twenty years, and most recently in the Department of State. Through all those years she has consistently been an advocate for the downtrodden, for those who live in countries where the basic human rights and freedoms which we take for granted are denied. They could have had no better champion than Meg Donovan. Meg was invaluable to me and my staff during the years that I served as Chairman of the International Operations Subcommittee, which had jurisdiction over the authorization bill for the State Department, USIA and the international broadcasting agencies. When we needed information, she ensured that we got it. She was an articulate advocate for the Administration's positions and an effective deal maker when the time was right. And as Secretary of State Albright, former Secretary of State Christopher, and all those who have been confirmed as Ambassadors during the Clinton Administration's tenure will tell you, Meg Donovan knew better than anyone how to help a nominee navigate the shoals of the confirmation process in the Senate. On Saturday, Secretary Albright delivered the eulogy at Meg's funeral. Her heartfelt words aptly captured the many sides of Meg Donovan--a devoted wife and mother, a dedicated and passionate government servant, and a woman whose zest for life was boundless. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere sympathies to Meg's family. I also ask that Secretary Albright's eulogy for Meg be printed in the Record. Eulogy for Meg Donovan By Secretary of State Madeleine Albright Father D'Silva; Duffy, Colin, Emma, Liam, Mr. Daniel Donovan, Patrick, Paula, Mary Ellen, and other members of Meg Donovan's family; colleagues, friends and acquaintances of Meg: There are times when it seems more fitting just to stammer with emotion than to speak with finely turned phrases. It does not seem fair; it is not fair that Heaven, which already has so much, now has so much more. And that we here on Earth, who need so much, have lost someone who is irreplaceable in our hearts. This we know. Meg could not pass from one world to the other without changing both. We are crushed with grief. But the scriptures say that those who mourn are blessed for they shall be comforted; and we are comforted by the knowledge that, somewhere up above, God is getting an earful on human rights. I did not become acquainted with Meg Donovan until I went to the State Department in 1993. Like her, I was a mother of three, including twins. I felt I understood better than some others might the choices and challenges she faced. But many of you knew her longer and more intimately than I. I cannot capture her personality or her career in full. To me, if there is one word that sums up Meg, it is ``completeness.'' There are others in this town who are smart and good at their jobs; others with a commitment to causes that are right and just; others who bargain shrewdly and hard; others with a warm and wonderful sense of humor; others who understand the obligations of friendship; others who are devoted and loving to their families; others who have the discipline to live their faith. There may even be others with Christmas sweaters that light up and play jingle bells. But rarely have the elements of true character been so artfully mixed as they were in Meg Donovan. Van Gogh is arriving in Washington; but a human masterpiece is gone. When I was designated by President Clinton to serve as Secretary of State, I did what my predecessor, Warren Christopher, did. I turned to the person with the best instincts in Washington on how to deal with our friends on Capitol Hill. That was Meg. We began preparing in December. Now, naturally, I thought the President had made a brilliant choice for the job, but I had to wonder, as we went along in practice, and Meg corrected and improved upon my every answer on every subject, whether there was anyone more qualified to be Secretary of State than she. Of course, that being December, the birthday of the twins came along. And naturally, Liam and Emma didn't understand why their mother couldn't promise to attend the party. Their proposal, passed on and advocated by Meg, was that we adjourn our practice session and re-convene at Chuck E. Cheese. It is typical that, when the hour of the party drew near, Meg excused herself, and did not ask but told her new boss, that she was heading for Chuck E. Cheese. When he was Secretary of State, George Marshall used to tell his staff ``don't fight the problem, decide it, then take action.'' I suspect he would have liked Meg a lot because, all her life, Meg was a doer. Like quite a few others, she came to Washington committed to the fight for tolerance and respect for basic human rights for all people. What set her apart is that she could still make that claim after having worked here 25 years. Whether at the Helsinki Commission, or the House Committee on International Relations, or the Department of State, Meg was one of the good guys. She could out-talk anyone, but talk isn't what she was after. She wanted change. She wanted Soviet Jews to be able to exercise their right to emigrate. She wanted Tibetans to be able to preserve their heritage. She wanted prisoners of conscience to breathe the air of freedom. She wanted women to have the power to make choices that would determine the course of their lives. Above all, she wanted to draw on and draw out the best in America: the America that would use its resources and power to help others achieve the blessings we all too often take for granted. These were her ideals, but Meg was more than a dreamer. No one was more effective than she at creating the coalitions, marshaling the arguments and devising the strategies that would yield concrete results. One of Meg's big problems was that she knew the system better and played it better than anyone else. So, whenever we found ourselves in a real legislative mess, which was not more than three or four times a week, we turned to Meg to help get us out. Around the Department and earlier in her years on Capitol Hill, Meg's energy and wisdom added sparkle to every meeting. When she spoke, people listened. When she listened, people chose their words with care. She was thoughtful and patient with those who, by virtue of experience or ability, needed her help. She brought out the best in others; just as she demanded the best from herself. In our collective mind's eye, we can still see her striding purposefully down a hall with her arms full of folders, trailed by some hapless Ambassadorial nominee whose future had been entrusted to Meg's capable hands. We see her, hugely pregnant, maneuvering around swivel chairs and outthrust elbows on the cramped dais of the House International Relations Committee. We see her serious and firm, forearms chopping the air for emphasis, persuading us with eloquence and passion that doing the right thing is also the smart thing. We see her relaxing at an office party, gold bracelets flashing, surrounded by flowers from her garden, a cherub's face aglow with health and life, and her 100 megawatt smile turned on full. We see her where she most belonged, with Duffy, her partner of 24 years, and with their children. And as we see her, we also hear that inimitable laugh, which was not exactly musical, but which conveyed a love and enjoyment of living that somehow makes what happened even harder to believe and accept. Meg knew the impermanence of life. She lost her mother to cancer and a sister to cystic fibrosis. So she made the most of every single day. The poet, William Blake, wrote that: He who binds himself to a joy Does the winged life destroy But he who kisses the joy as it flies Lives in eternity's sunrise. No force, not even life itself, could bind Meg Donovan or ground her flight. She was only 47. But, in that time, her gifts to those of us who are gathered here and to those from around the world who have benefited directly or indirectly from her commitment, were full and rich. This morning, as she looks down upon us, I know that she would expect us to cry and that, if she could, she would herself hand us the tissues. But she would also want us to be thankful for our time together, and to dedicate ourselves to improving our own lives by helping others. We are sad today, but our sorrow is accompanied by the abundance of joy in the memories we share, the life we celebrate and the love that surrounds us. May that joy melt, over time, the clouds of our grief. May Meg's family, especially, draw comfort from our affection and from the deep respect we held for her. And may Meg Donovan rest in peace, for we will never, never forget her.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. I think the arguments have been extraordinarily well covered in the course of the afternoon by the Senator from Montana, the Senator from Arkansas, and also the Senators from Alaska. I begin my comments by saying that I think this is one of those difficult issues we are called on to come to the floor and debate, argue about, and to decide. I regret that because, in a sense, all of what the Senator from Alaska said is extraordinarily compelling with respect to the plight of the citizens of King Cove. There is nobody here who is not sensitive to the need to provide access to health care and who isn't going to be concerned that guaranteed emergency medical services are available to people who need them. These are not just citizens of Alaska, these are our citizens, too. I think when we come to the floor of the Senate and make arguments on behalf of all of our citizens in rural areas, which is what we are talking about here. So I hope no one will construe in any way whatever--and I am confident my colleagues have both said this and feel it--the notion that anything we are saying suggests an insensitivity to the plight of the citizens of King Cove. But questions remain: What is the best response to that plight? What is the best way to deal with the effort to provide emergency medical services for people who clearly deserve them? There are, I think, simply rational, practical differences of opinion about how you balance the equities here. We have a $700,000 appropriation in the Senate Transportation Appropriations bill to the Corps of Engineers to study what options may be available in terms of alternate transportation for rural Alaska. So it is not as if this is an issue being looked at in a vacuum. It is already on the radar screen of the U.S. Congress. We are already trying to find out what different alternatives may be available. But all alternatives have to be weighed against what this bill would represent. We are talking about the first ever permanent new road construction in a federally-designated wilderness area--the first ever permanent new road construction which will be maintained. Now, it is true there are other miles of road within this wilderness area, but those were trails that were there before the area got its wilderness designation, and they are not being maintained. They will ultimately some day grow over, except to the degree that hunters and trekkers who may go up there use them, which is not sufficient, probably, to maintain them. The point we make is that a wilderness area is a wilderness area by definition. When you build a new road, you have taken away the notion of wilderness. The construction process alone is disruptive. I have heard reference on the floor in this debate to the minimal amount of traffic that may take place. But a road has to be maintained. There is also something illogical in the notion that a road that is being built as an alternative to inclement weather and problems of transportation--isn't Alaska going to present you with inclement problems in terms of road travel? A whiteout is a whiteout. Road and vehicular travel is as much affected by an effort to go through a whiteout and a blizzard as a flight. That raises many questions about other possibilities for this road. When I look at the sum, the Senator from Alaska suggests this is not going to be a Federal expenditure, but in point of fact, 90 percent of highway expenditures tend to come from the Federal Government even though they go through the State treasury. The fact is, the cost of a road is somewhere in the vicinity of $25 to $30 million. Just put $25 million or $30 million in an interest-free account and take your 10 percent or whatever, and you have $3 million of earnings a year. You could build a mighty fine clinic for 100 people for a tenth of that sum. In fact, you might even pay a young doctor $250,000 a year to sit there for a year if you really wanted to talk about cheaper alternatives, together with telemedicine giving you the capacity to do many things, not to mention the possibility of the Federal Government and other kinds of emergency transportation that could be made available. I think when you weigh the various options here that are being looked at now, you may in the end, as the Senator from Arkansas has suggested, come to the conclusion that this is the best alternative. But it seems to me that my colleagues would be well advised and well served to at least wait until the analysis is done in order to measure that against the enormous environmental precedent that is set by authorizing the first-ever permanent, maintained road in a wilderness area. Let me just speak for a moment about the environmental concerns of running a 30-mile road from King Cove to Cold Bay through the Izembek refuge and wilderness. Created in 1960, it is the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge is an internationally recognized wildlife refuge because it is a major stopover on the Pacific flyway for hundreds of thousands of migrating waterfowl and other migratory birds. For example, the entire North American population of Pacific black brant and most of the world's emperor geese use this isthmus as a crucial resting and feeding ground on their annual flights. These geese stop to feed on this isthmus and once airborne continue 60 hours of consecutive flight until they reach parts of southern California and Mexico, losing one-third of their body weight on the journey. Clearly, the protection of the feeding ground is critical to the health of these amazing birds. Additionally, wildlife abound throughout the refuge which serves as a key migration route for caribou herds as well as a denning ground for Alaskan brown bear. The proposed road would bisect the refuge's isthmus which narrows to less than three miles at some points. A road through this pristine habitat would be more than harmful to its wildlife. These are critical concerns. But we don't need to decide this issue today. Not doing that today does not deny any service whatsoever to the citizens of Alaska. I think everybody who stands here asking the Senate to weigh the impact as to precedent of the first-ever maintained new road in a wilderness area against the options that are being studied would have to agree that there is no rationale for rushing to judgment against those options. So I urge my colleagues, as difficult as I know it is--I certainly agree with the Senator from Arkansas. If the alternative proves that this is the way to go, then the Congress, I am sure, will join in a 100-0 vote to make that happen. I would certainly be one of those to do that. But that is not where we find ourselves yet. So I urge colleagues to exercise restraint, wait for the results of the analysis, look at the alternatives, and measure that against the precedent of what would happen in terms of wilderness construction in this case. I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of time for my side.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have an opportunity today in the Senate to vote for legislation that will help our nation's 23 million small businesses. On September 15, the Senate Committee on Small Business, made up of ten Republicans and eight Democrats, passed a comprehensive small business bill, H.R. 3412, that includes all the provisions of my Small Business Loan Enhancement Act of 1998. It also includes Senator Bond's two bills, the Small Business Programs Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 and the Small Business Year 2000 Readiness Act, bills introduced by Senators Cleland and Wellstone, and four other amendments. This bi-partisan vote was a big step towards final passage of legislation that augments the opportunities available to every small business owner and helps these entrepreneurs contribute to their communities and the economy. In Massachusetts and across the country, these are the programs that are working; assisting individuals with the tools to successfully manage their own business. If enacted, these changes would make a number of improvements to the Small Business Administration's lending programs which reduce small businesses' costs and paperwork, increase access to capital for women- owned businesses, and promote small business lending, particularly to those small businesses needing loans to meet the challenges of Year 2000 computer problem. They also build upon successful programs such as the Small Business Innovation Research program and the Women's Business Centers. One of the most important provisions passed revises the loan loss reserve requirement (a cash reserve to guarantee that the government is paid back if a loan defaults) for microlenders by setting a 15-percent ceiling and a 10-percent floor. After a microloan intermediary has participated in the SBA Microloan program for five years and demonstrated its ability to maintain a healthy loan fund, it can request that SBA review and, when appropriate, reduce its loan loss reserve from 15 percent to a percentage based on its average loan loss rate for the five-year period. The proposed change would continue to protect the government's interest in microloans as well as enhance the program by freeing up cash which microlenders could reprogram for more microloans or technical assistance to small business owners. Based on the program's success since it was started six years ago, 36 out of 42 microlenders would qualify to maintain a loan loss reserve of ten percent, rather than 15 percent. To reduce unnecessary regulatory burden and costs to small business lenders, this legislation raises the requisite appraisal threshold from $100,000 to $250,000 for 7(a) guaranteed loans and 504 development loans. This is consistent with federal bank regulatory policy in place since 1994. After reviewing the legislation, SBA Administrator Aida Alvarez sent a statement of Administration Policy, approved by the Office of Management and Budget, to Chairman Bond on September 15 saying it had no objection to making the requisite appraisal threshold amount consistent with existing policy. This change is estimated to save borrowers on average from $1,000 to $3,000. To help small businesses meet the escalating challenges of the Year 2000 (Y2K) computer problem, this bill specifies that small businesses can use 7(a) loans to finance the cost of making their systems and computers Y2K-compliant. The Committee complemented this change by also approving a loan guarantee pilot program introduced by Senator Bond which would allow 7(a) preferred and certified lenders to use their paperwork to expedite loans capped at $50,000 to help small businesses with Y2K expenses. The bill expands SBA's 504 Development Company program to make women- owned businesses eligible for loans up to $1 million to acquire equipment and expand facilities. Currently, 504 loans to women-owned businesses are capped at $750,000. The Committee also endorsed a provision, based on the Kerry-Cleland Women's Business Centers bill introduced earlier this year, which increases annual funding from $8 million to $12 million for Women's Business Centers. The Committee passed several other important provisions to improve the business climate for small business. For the sector of small, high- tech companies that participate in federal research and development, the Committee voted to make the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program permanent after 16 years of success. The SBIR program is a great example of how government and business can work together to advance the cause of both science and our economy. The results have been dramatic for small, high-technology companies participating in the program. From 1983 to the end of 1996, some 8,000 small, high- technology firms have received more than 40,000 SBIR research awards, totaling $6 billion. Massachusetts is the second largest recipient of SBIR awards in the nation, receiving $148 million in SBIR research dollars in 1996. Knowing the benefits of the SBIR program, I believe we need to find ways to make sure the SBIR awards are more equitably distributed throughout the country without changing the program's reliance on competition. The highly competitive nature of SBIR awards is one of the main reasons the program has been so popular and successful. A recent SBA study showed that one-third of the states received 85 percent of all SBIR awards. I joined my colleagues to support Senator Carl Levin's amendment to promote the SBIR program in states that receive the fewest awards. This amendment directs the ten federal agencies that participate in the SBIR program to use their existing procurement outreach efforts for SBIR outreach. Responding to requests from Veterans Service Organizations to assist veterans with entrepreneurial endeavors, I joined my colleagues and supported Chairman Bond's bill that, among other things, would increase outreach and assessment of opportunities and services for veterans by establishing the Office of Veterans Business Development within SBA. I am proud that the Committee adopted a version that included my suggestion to authorize $2.5 million for this important effort. The microloan community has more than just the loan loss reserve improvements to applaud in this legislation. Senator Bumpers successfully eliminated the cap on the amount of microloan funds a single state can receive. The cap has penalized several rural states with small populations that have a high demand for microloans. And Senator Wellstone won unanimous support for an innovative four-year demonstration program to spawn community development venture capital organizations nationwide. The purpose of Senator Wellstone's initiative is to stimulate and promote small business development and entrepreneurship in economically distressed communities. The Small Business Investment Company (SBIC) program is vital to our fastest growing small companies that have capital needs exceeding the caps on SBA's loan program, but are not large enough to be attractive to traditional venture capital investors. The demand is clear: Last year, participating securities in the SBIC program invested $360 million in 495 financings. In my state, where we have an impressive community of fast-growing companies, particularly in the hi-tech industry, there were 140 SBIC financings, worth $145.4 million. The Participating Securities component of the SBIC program invests principally in the equities of new or expanding businesses. To leverage the private capital of participating securities and better serve these fast-growing businesses, I supported Senator Lieberman's amendment which raises the authorization level for participating securities from $800 million to $1 billion in fiscal year 1999 and from $900 million to $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2000. In response to the increasing costs, loss of businesses and personal devastation caused by disasters, the Committee passed Senator Cleland's five-year disaster mitigation pilot program. The program, recommended by the Administration as part of its Fiscal Year 1999 Budget, would allow SBA to make direct loans to small business owners, who can't get credit elsewhere and who live in disaster-prone areas, for financing preventive measures to protect their businesses against future disaster damage. Disaster mitigation is expected to reduce the costs of disaster repair by 50 percent for small businesses. To help small businesses maneuver the maze of environmental regulations, the Committee passed a small business environmental assistance pilot program introduced by Senator Burns. Administered through existing Small Business Development Centers in ten states, the program is designed to help small businesses comply with often complex environmental regulations. Lastly, in addition to the Committee-reported bill, the Senate today will adopt a Bond-Kerry amendment. First, it adds the Department of Labor to the SBA's HUBZone program, which Congress enacted last year. And second, it amends Section 205 of this bill, H.R. 3412, to improve the reporting tools concerning small business set-asides of federal contracts. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support of small businesses and ask unanimous consent that this statement be entered in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a special individual, one whom the people of Massachusetts are proud to call one of our own. On Sunday, September 27th, 1998, elected officials, friends, family and the communities of Quincy and Dorchester will join to recognize the contributions of Mr. Joseph Harold by celebrating the designation of the Joseph R. Harold, Sr. MBTA Old Colony Rail Bridge. This important structure will bridge these two communities in much the same way Joseph Harold did in his life. Service to community and nation can define one's life, and such is the case with Mr. Harold. After graduating from Boston English High School, he served in the U.S. Infantry under General George Patton. His service with that historic leader earned him a Bronze Star for bravery in an assault on the Siegfried Line, a Battlefield Commission to Second Lieutenant, and three Battle Stars. His commitment to those that served in the military would remain throughout his life, demonstrated by his 43 year service as the State Adjutant for the Disabled American Veterans. For those decades, Mr. Harold was a principled advocate for any man or woman who had served, logging thousands of hours on behalf of countless individuals. The depth of his conviction will allow his impact on national veterans issues to reach far into the future. Mr. Harold's death in 1994 was an unfortunate loss for the state of Massachusetts, but his career of advocacy and compassion serves as an inspiration to all citizens. This is demonstrated by the fund established in his honor at the Quincy Historical Society in June of 1997. This fund will collect, preserve and display military items of historical significance for the city, and that is a fitting tribute to a man who did so much for the communities he loved. I am proud to join with his sons, former State Senator Paul Harold and William Harold, his seven grandchildren, and the communities of Dorchester and Quincy in honoring Joseph Harold.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in a time of unprecedented economic prosperity, we have seen a reduction in inflation and unemployment yet a full-time minimum wage earner makes almost $3,000 below the poverty level--a mere $10,712 per year. No one who works full time should be poor in this country--it's time to raise the minimum wage. Republicans say that raising the minimum wage will cause job loss and put undue burdens on business owners. But in a recent study conducted by Princeton economists David Card and Alan Krueger, their analysis of New Jersey's minimum wage increase in 1992 showed that employment in fast food restaurants grew at least as quickly as in neighboring Pennsylvania where the minimum wage stayed the same. Also noted in the study was that higher wages actually benefitted employers--turnover expenses were reduced and productivity improved due to better motivated and more stable employees. Mr. President, it's time to raise the minimum wage. Additionally, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that since the 1996-97 wage increases took effect, 4 million new jobs have been created and unemployment is at 4.5%--its lowest level in a generation. In fact, a study by the Economic Policy Institute documents that there was no measurable negative effect on jobs. The only measurable effect was on workers--they received the pay increases they deserved. Mr. President, it's time to raise the minimum wage. Contrary to what has been said by my colleagues on the opposite side of the aisle, workers who will benefit from this increase are not primarily teenagers from high income families. 70% are adults over the age of 20 and forty percent of minimum wage workers are the sole bread winners in their families. As a matter of fact, the average minimum wage earner brings home half of their family's income. Additionally, 60% of minimum wage earners are women. Mr. President, it's time to raise the minimum wage. In 1979, minimum wage earners needed to work an average of 40 hours per week to stay out of poverty. Today those same workers must work 52 hours. By raising the minimum wage one dollar by the year 2000 we will restore its purchasing power to its mid-1970's level. With unemployment levels 50% to 75% lower and inflation rates 2 to 3 times lower, we can afford to restore that purchasing power. Mr. President, it's time to raise the minimum wage. It is time to honor the American working people with a fair wage. As President Franklin D. Roosevelt said, ``Our nation, so richly endowed with natural resources and with a capable and industrious population, should be able to devise ways and means of insuring to all able-bodied working men and women a fair day's pay for a fair day's work.'' I call upon my colleagues in the Senate to begin narrowing the gap between rich and poor in this country. We must help bring economic prosperity to the men and women who feed our families, care for our children and elderly parents, and play by the rules. It's time to help working families and it's time to raise the minimum wage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to voice my strong support for the tough, common sense approach to fighting crime that is embodied in the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act of 1998''. I want to urge every one of my colleagues--Democrat and Republican--to stand behind this bill and in the closing weeks of this Congress to pass these measures to protect Americans from the crime in our streets, in our schoolyards, and around the world. With lives on the line, there is no time to wait, no time to hesitate, and no time to be partisan. Four years ago we came together and passed a crime bill that was tough on crime and smart on prevention. I am proud to have helped lead the fight four years ago to put 100,000 cops on the street, and now it's working. Crime is down 22% in Massachusetts and communities tell you it's because we've restored the notion of community policing. In Boston, juvenile crime is down to levels we haven't seen since the 1950's--and Mayor Tom Menino is proving that a combination of tough punishment and outreach to at-risk young people is a prescription for safety, a prescription for crime prevention. None of this would have been possible if this Senate hadn't come together to get serious about crime. Now in America we need to get serious again about crime prevention. This crime bill continues to build on the achievements of the 1994 Crime Bill, focusing on the new epidemic of crime in our schools, flaws in the juvenile justice system, the crisis of gang violence, and the sale and use of illegal drugs. We wrote this bill keeping in mind both those we are fighting for and those who lead the fight in our streets-- that's why it enhances the rights of victims and gives more tools to law enforcement officers as they take on international crime and terrorism. From expanding the COPS Program, providing additional funds for prisons and jails, helping the fight against violence against women, and creating partnerships between schools and law enforcement agencies, this bill targets resources on the ground where they're needed the most. This bill is smart and tough when it comes to building a better juvenile justice system--giving federal prosecutors the authority to prosecute some juvenile criminals as adults when they commit the most heinous of crimes; banning gun purchases by juveniles who have been convicted of violent crime; and providing the badly needed funds for youth violence courts. These measures respond to the demand from those brave social workers, prosecutors, and police working on juvenile crime at ground zero with inadequate resources. This bill also represents a critical response to the crisis of international crime and terrorism. Mr. President, we are facing a threat that is global in nature: transnational crime organizations that closely resemble multinational corporations; terrorist organizations that have pledged to send more and more Americans home in body-bags. This bill does more than send the message that we won't tolerate terrorism--it makes it clear that we're going to give our law enforcement personnel the tools to stop terrorists dead in their tracks. Mr. President, the clock is ticking on this Congress. But even louder is the ticking time-bomb of crime in our schools, violence in our streets, and terrorism abroad. This Senate has the chance to act decisively to pass the ``Safe Schools, Safe Streets, and Secure Borders Act'' to fight crime, to defuse the threats before this nation. We have no reason to stall. The time is now to move forward with measures that are smart, tough, and effective.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this morning I joined Senator Kennedy and hundreds of mourners from Massachusetts and around the country, to pay our last respects to our friend Kirk O'Donnell and to offer our sincere condolences to Kirk's wife, Kathy, and their two children, Holly and Brendan. For all of us who knew and admired Kirk, this was a difficult morning at the Holy Name Church in West Roxbury, difficult to say goodbye to a special friend who left us too soon. But Mr. President, I believe everyone in attendance this morning at the funeral services took some comfort in the way that friends and family alike--and Kirk had both many friends and a tight-knit family--came together to share our personal recollections of Kirk. It was striking to see just how deeply everyone respected Kirk O'Donnell, the many ways in which he touched so many lives. Kirk O'Donnell made a deep impact on those who knew him, certainly, but he also made a difference for millions of people in this country who never met him, but whose lives are better because of his life of committed service. Three articles in today's newspapers, one by Al Hunt of the Wall Street Journal, another by Tom Oliphant of the Boston Globe and yet another by Susan Estrich of the Boston Herald, stood out in my mind as testimony to the legacy Kirk O'Donnell left behind in this country. Al Hunt, Tom Oliphant, and Susan Estrich knew Kirk O'Donnell as a friend and they performed a great service in capturing Kirk's essence, the depth of a man who never stopped fighting for those causes in which he believed. I know that, as we all say goodbye to Kirk O'Donnell this week, those articles provide both comfort for those who knew Kirk, and inspiration for those who, even in these troubled political times in the United States, still believe in the dignity of public service. Mr. President, I would ask that these articles be printed in the Record. The articles follow: [From the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 10, 1998] The Loss of a Talented, Decent and Honorable Man (By Albert R. Hunt) Kirk O'Donnell, one of the ablest and most honorable people in American politics, died suddenly last weekend at the altogether too young age of 52. Even in grieving, it's somehow hard not to think how different the Clinton presidency might have been if Kirk O'Donnell had been a top White House adviser starting in 1993. He combined the best virtues of the old and the new politics. Raised in the rough-and-tumble environs of Boston tribal warfare, he never saw politics as anything but a contact sport. But he always practiced it with decency and civility. He was a great student of political history, which better enabled him to appreciate contemporary changes. There was a pragmatism to Kirk O'Donnell that never conflicted with his commitment and total integrity. Success never changed him. He founded the influential Center for National Policy (his successor as its chair was Madeleine Albright) and then became a partner in the high- powered law firm of Vernon Jordan and Bob Strauss. But his values and devotion to family, friends and country were remarkably constant. ``He was a big oak tree of a friend,'' notes Stanley Brand, a Washington lawyer, of the former Brown University football star, a description which Mr. O'Donnell used to joke, was an ``oxymoron.'' He cut his political teeth working for Mayor Kevin White in Boston in the mid-70s, running the neighborhood city halls, developing an appreciation of the relationships between common folks and government that would serve him well for the next quarter century. Then there were more than seven years as chief counsel to House Speaker Tip O'Neill. There was an exceptional triumvirate of top aides to the speaker: Leo Diehl, his longtime colleague who was the link to the past and the gatekeeper who kept away the hangers-on; Ari Weiss, although only in his twenties, unrivaled as a policy expert; and Kirk O'Donnell, in his early thirties, who brought political, legal and foreign policy expertise to the table, always with superb judgment. Through it may seem strange in today's Congress, he commanded real respect across the aisle. ``Kirk was really a tough, bright opponent; he was a great strategist because he didn't let his emotions cloud his judgment,'' recalls Billy Pitts, who was Mr. O'Donnell's Republican counterpart working with GOP House Leader Bob Michel. ``But he always was a delight to be around and his word was gold.'' When the Democrats were down, routed by the Reagan revolution in 1981, it was Kirk O'Donnell who put together a strategy memorandum advising the party to lay off esoteric issues and not to refight the tax issues but to focus on social security and jobs. It was the blueprint for a big Democratic comeback the next year. When then Republican Congressman Dick Cheney criticized the speaker for tough partisanship, Mr. O'Donnell immediately turned it around by citing a book that Rep. Cheney and his wife had written on House leaders that praised the same qualities that he now was criticizing. For operated as well at that intersection of substance and politics, or understood both as well. He played a major role in orchestrating a powerful contingent of Irish-American politicians, including the speaker, to oppose pro-Irish groups espousing violence. ``Kirk put the whole Irish thing together,'' the speaker said. He was staunchly liberal on the responsibility of government to care for those in need or equal rights. But he cringed when Democrats veered off onto fringe issues, and never forgot the lessons learned running neighborhood city halls in his 20's. Family values to Kirk O'Donnell wasn't a political buzzword or cliche, but a reality of life; there never has been a more loving family than Kirk and Kathy O'Donnell and their kids, Holly and Brendan. The Clinton administration made job overtures to Kirk O'Donnell several times but they were never commensurate with his talents. He should have been either Chief of Staff or legal counsel from the very start of this administration. He would have brought experience, expertise, maturity, judgment, toughness--intimate knowledge of the way Washington works-- that nobody else in that White House possessed. But sadly, that's not what this president sought. For Kirk O'Donnell wouldn't have tolerated dissembling. He never was unfaithful to those he worked for but ``spinning''--as in situational truths--was foreign to him. When working for the speaker of Michael Dukakis in 1988, he would dodge, bob, sometimes talk gibberish but never, in hundreds of interviews with me, did he ever dissemble. The contrast between this and someone like Dick Morris, who Mr. Clinton continuously turned to, is striking. This was brought home anew when Mr. Morris, the former top Clinton aide, wrote a letter seeming to take issue with a column I wrote a few weeks ago. For starters, he erroneously denied that he suggested Hillary Clinton is a lesbian. More substantively, Mr. Morris says that Mr. Clinton called him when the Lewinsky story broke and had him do a poll to gauge reaction. He did that and told Mr. Clinton the public wouldn't accept the truth. Although Mr. Morris turned over what he says is that poll to Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr, some of us question whether the survey was genuine. The infamous political consultant swears he sampled 500 people, asked 25 to 30 questions and did it all out of own pocket for $2,000. If true, it was a slipshod survey upon which the president reportedly decided to stake his word. (Only days later, Mr. Clinton swore at a private White Hose meeting that he hadn't spoken to Mr. Morris in ages.) There was no more an astute analyst of polls than Kirk O'Donnell. He would pepper political conversations with survey data. But because he understood history and had such personal honor he always understood a poll was a snapshot, often valuable. But it never could be a substitute for principle or morality or integrity. There were currencies of his professional and personal life. These no longer are commonplace commodities in politics, which is one of many reasons that the passing of this very good man is such a loss.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. We both benefited enormously from the generous friendship of Kirk O'Donnell and from the remarkable quality of wisdom he had well beyond his years, great common sense, great roots in the streets, the city that he worked for, and of the State that he loved, and we will both miss him. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to pause for a few moments to acknowledge that many of us, particularly those of us from Massachusetts, are feeling the loss this week of one of our Nation's most savvy political strategists and one of our most contributing and admirable citizens. Kirk O'Donnell was a man who lived his life in a way that proved not only can you work in politics without losing your soul but that politics from Fields Corner in Dorchester to city hall in the heart of Boston, all the way up to the lofty office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives, can in fact be a most honorable profession. Mr. President, we all know that we live in very difficult political times, where endless cynicism seems to find too many citizens turning away from political dialog that they seem to find disappoints them. But Kirk O'Donnell, through every fiber of his body and in every step that he took in life, reminded us that political parties can stand for a set of ideals and that politics can still be an art form mastered in order to advance the common good--not individual good, but the common good. That is what Kirk always fought for. Like so many of us in Massachusetts--and many are Republicans--Kirk O'Donnell was a Democrat by birth. But through his decades in public service he became a Democrat by conviction and a Democrat by sacrifice and by life work. The young man who fell in love with football at the Boston Latin School and at Brown University--so much so that at Boston Latin he was enshrined in their sports hall of fame--found his passions attracted him to an equally rough and tumble game on the field of Boston politics. Kevin White's 1970 campaign for Governor in Massachusetts inspired Kirk to get involved in politics for what he thought was a ``brief stint.'' That ``brief stint'' became a remarkable career. When Kevin White made good on his promise as mayor of Boston to ``bring city hall to the neighborhoods,'' he turned to Kirk O'Donnell to run his Fields Corner little city hall. From his office in a trailer, Kirk brought city government to street corners, to newsstands, and to neighborhood picnics. He knew how important it was to show his fellow Bostonians that government worked for them, if only they knew how to work within the system. And within that system, Kirk was their devoted guide. Tip O'Neill could not have chosen a more dedicated or more skillful individual to be his counsel than Kirk O'Donnell, a man who said, in his own unassuming way, ``if you can understand Fields Corner, you can understand Congress.'' Kirk was right--and Tip O'Neill knew it. For 8 years, it was Kirk O'Donnell who gave the Speaker the extra set of eyes and ears he needed to hold a Democratic majority together in spite of all of the force of President Reagan and the Reagan era. Kirk talked with Members of Congress the same way he would with a friend of 20 years or a constituent in Fields Corner or West Roxbury--warm, honest, straightforward. Tip O'Neill knew that in Kirk O'Donnell he had found a true friend. Thousands of people to this day will tell you they were friends with Tip O'Neill, the Speaker. Tip O'Neill was a politician who never forgot a name and loved to talk with everyone he met. He had more than his share of friends and acquaintances. But Kirk O'Donnell was a special kind of friend and so it was that he was one of the few asked to help carry Tip O'Neill's casket when our beloved Speaker passed away. That gesture alone spoke volumes about the kind of relationship forged between the older, wiser, more experienced Tip O'Neill and the younger, idealistic, and committed Kirk O'Donnell. Even after he lost his friend, Tip O'Neill, Kirk kept fighting for the Democratic Party and the causes in which he believed so strongly. He breathed life into the Center for National Policy, leading seminars and meetings with Democratic activists, supporters, and even with those who Kirk believed might someday run for office. His message always came from the heart--Democrats stand for something, something real, something which could not be measured alone in an election. And he cared passionately about that something. On the darkest days for our party--and he went through some--Kirk reminded us to never give up the fight. He knew the importance of staying involved, of staying committed. He understood the full measure of democracy--and tried to bring it to others starving for freedom through his work in the National Democratic Institute for Foreign Affairs. Wherever, Kirk went, his message was the same; find out what matters to you and never stop fighting for it. Kirk O'Donnell never forgot what really mattered in life. More than anything that was his devotion to his family--to his wife of 26 years, Kathryn Holland O'Donnell and their children, Holly and Brendan. That devotion was absolute. I am proud to say that Brendan was going to join us as an intern in our office. Now that may be somewhat delayed, but, obviously, we look forward to the day when he will be there with us continuing in his father's footsteps. Whenever I ran into him either in Washington, DC, or in Massachusetts, Kirk's first question wasn't about politics; he always asked me how my daughter was enjoying her education in his alma mater, Brown University. And he was always quick to share with me his latest story about his own daughter--Holly's experience on that same campus, or the story of the last trip to Foxboro Stadium with his son Brendan to watch Patriots football. It goes without saying that as much as all of us will miss him, obviously we feel the special pain that Kathryn, Holly, and Brendan feel at this time with their lost which is so much greater. Today, we remember Kirk O'Donnell with words that cannot do any justice to a life that was both tragically short and joyfully filled with meaning and with accomplishment. We will miss Kirk O'Donnell, a friend and an adviser to all of us in Massachusetts politics and in the Democratic Party. But we know that his spirit will continue to inspire us with the faith that he had in our common ideals as Americans and in his commitment to working to make life better for other people. I thank the President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak as in morning business for 10 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish today to speak for a few moments about a terrible loss for the state of Massachusetts, and for all those around the world who care about our fight to cure AIDS. Among the dead in the crash of SwissAir flight 111 was a special couple, Dr. Jonathan Mann and Dr. Mary Lou Clement Mann. Both devoted their lives to finding a cure for AIDS, and today I join thousands of people all over this country and across the world in mourning the tragedy of SwissAir flight 111 and the loss of everyone on board. Jonathan and Mary Lou Clement Mann selflessly gave of themselves and cared for patients from Zaire to New Mexico, Boston to Geneva, embodying the best of their profession by bringing hope and comfort to countless individuals and families. Jonathan Mann was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1947 and graduated from Harvard College in 1969. After attending the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, he returned to Boston for his formal entry into the medical profession. In 1975 he joined the Centers for Disease Control as an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer, and from 1977 to 1984 he was the State Epidemiologist and Chief Medical Officer for the state of New Mexico. After receiving his Masters in Public Health from Harvard University in 1980, Dr. Mann returned to the CDC and it was then that AIDS became his primary, professional focus. During these years he established and directed the Zaire AIDS Research Project, which conducted the first comprehensive study of the disease on the continent where AIDS has brought the most widespread devastation and suffering. Dr. Mann's work there led him to the World Health Organization's Global Programme on AIDS in 1986, a post of global impact which he held until his return to Harvard's School of Public Health in 1990. Dr. Mann's involvement in this issue was total; his life and the fight to find a cure for AIDS soon became, in everyone's eyes, synonymous. Beyond his professional service to the cause, he participated in the AIDS Walk in Boston, World AIDS Day, and countless events, workshops, symposiums and conferences. His ultimate foe was the stigma that was attached to AIDS victims. His only weapons in the fight against AIDS were his passion, his intellect, and his belief in the truth, and with those tools he was well armed to fight his battle on the fields not just of science, but against a public that too often fell short of the compassion and humanity that a war on AIDS required. Dr. Mann was not afraid to declare that AIDS will not be beaten as long as we stigmatize those that fall victim to it. He was one of the first and unfortunately few researchers who took AIDS seriously in the infancy of the epidemic, when AIDS was still called GRIDS--gay-related immunodeficiency syndrome. Jonathan and Mary Lou Mann understood that AIDS was a challenge for every community in this country and he was not afraid to speak out and criticize anyone--an administration, a society, an entire nation--who denied that truth. Dr. Mann's work echoed from the best of human instincts: to reach out to those in need and to wield his power to alleviate suffering. We mourn the loss of Dr. Jonathan Mann and his wife Dr. Mary Lou Mann. On behalf of Massachusetts, the United States Senate, and all those who were fortunate enough to know these two gifted individuals, we remember them for their energy, their compassion for others, and realize that the world is better off for their time on this earth.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Wellstone, Harkin, and Landrieu, to introduce the ``Small Business Loan Enhancement Act.'' To give small businesses more of an advantage, we propose small but significant changes to the Small Business Administration's three primary lending programs: the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program, the 504 Development Company program, and the Microloan program. These changes would foster loans to growing women- owned businesses and enhance small business lending by saving costs for small business borrowers, reducing paperwork for lenders, and increasing available capital for microloans and technical assistance. This bill will also enable small businesses to use SBA's most popular loan guarantee program to fix year 2000 problems. Women-owned businesses are increasing in number, range, diversity and earning power. They constitute one-third of the 23 million small businesses in the United States, contribute more than $2.38 trillion annually in revenues to the economy and range in industry from advertising agencies to manufacturing. Addressing the special needs of women-owned businesses serves not only these entrepreneurs, but also the economic strength of this nation as a whole. Since 1992, SBA has managed to increase access to capital for women and has worked in earnest to move women entrepreneurs away from expensive credit card financing to more affordable loans for financing their business ventures. While the percentage of 504 loans to women-owned businesses has increased from 4.2 percent in 1987 to 14.7 percent in 1998, we need to increase lending opportunities to better reflect that 40 percent of all businesses are owned by women. By expanding the public policy goals of the 504 loan program to include women-owned businesses, we are ensuring that loans to eligible women business owners aren't capped at $750,000 but are now available for as much as $1 million. According to Certified Development Company professionals, loan underwriters are conservative when it comes to approving loans for more than $750,000 and that this directive would undoubtedly help eligible women business owners get the financing they need to expand their facilities and buy equipment as their businesses grow. In addition to increasing access to capital, the SBA plays a critical role in eliminating barriers that keep entrepreneurs from entering the economy, reducing regulatory burdens and lowering transaction costs. The Senate has an opportunity to reduce time and costs to both lenders and small business borrowers in real estate transactions by modernizing appraisal requirements for real estate transactions for 7(a) and 504 loans. Under current operating procedures, where more than $100,000 of the authorized loan proceeds in a financing package includes real estate (acquisition, construction and improvement to land and buildings), SBA requires a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal. Our bill would raise the requisite appraisal amount to $250,000, consistent with other agencies, including, among others, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Raising the threshold does not increase the government's risk in these loans because the bill specifies that lenders must require a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal on loans less than $250,000 if that is their standard for similar non-SBA loans. Depending on the area of the country, savings in the 7(a) and 504 programs are estimated to be from $1,000 to $5,000 per loan by requiring an evaluation instead of a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal. In the 504 program, this change is estimated to save money for 2,000 out of the some 6,000 annual 504 borrowers, which are often minority and women-owned businesses. To complement those regulatory improvements, this bill also encourages lenders to use the 7(a) program for their borrowers by streamlining paperwork requirements those lenders must complete after a 7(a) loan defaults. Two years ago, Congress enacted a requirement that reduced by one percent the interest rate paid on the guaranteed portion of defaulted 7(a) loans. Although the change was expected to substantially decrease the subsidy costs of the program, this has not proved to be the case. Instead, it has created a paperwork burden disproportionately high compared to the savings realized. To help small businesses meet the escalating challenges of the Year 2000 computer problem, also called the Y2K problem, this bill clarifies Congressional intent that the 7(a) guaranteed loan program be used for this purpose. As amended, the 7(a) loan program will specify that small businesses can use these loans to finance the cost of making their systems and computers Y2K-compliant. In addition to legitimate concerns about function and survival that make this provision important for small businesses, Y2K compliance will also be a regulatory concern for bankers and small business borrowers. We understand that bank regulators will be requiring lenders to survey their borrowers and to certify that they are Y2K-compliant. Congress recognizes that small businesses may be harmed by the Y2K problem and that the 7(a) program is an appropriate means and established SBA program that can immediately help them deal with it. In fiscal year 1997, the 7(a) loan program reached more than 40,000 businesses, making 45,288 loans and approving loans totalling $9.5 billion. The last component of this bill amends SBA's Microloan program. This important economic development tool has, in six short years, provided close to 7,000 microloans worth some $68 million. More than 40 percent of those loans went to women, 42 percent went to minorities, and 11 percent went to veterans. This program, which provides loans that average $10,000 and can be for as little as a few hundred dollars, has improved the landscape of some our country's poorest communities, creating jobs, helping people move from public assistance to weekly paychecks, and contributing to the tax base. As stated in a July Boston Business Journal article, ``There are many people out there who can't get traditional bank loans because they have bad credit histories, or no credit histories or no assets.'' In spite of these realities that make microentrepreneurs too risky for banks, the government has suffered no losses in this program. It is successful because it helps entrepreneurs turn their talents into businesses, such as a furniture upholsterer or a pet shop, and then augments the capital infusion by providing technical assistance to teach microentrepreneurs how to run a successful business. This amendment would authorize the SBA Administrator to reduce an microlender's loan loss reserve (a reserve of cash to guarantee that the government is paid back if a loan defaults) from 15 percent to not less than ten percent after an intermediary has been participating in the microloan program for at least five years and has demonstrated its ability to maintain a healthy loan fund. Each microlender's loan loss reserve will be established based on its average loss rate for the previous five-year period. Because of the program's success so far, 36 out of 42 microlenders would qualify under this bill's requirements to maintain a loan loss reserve of ten percent rather than 15 percent. The proposed change would continue to protect the government's interest in these loans and at the same time enhance the program because it frees up cash that microlenders can reprogram for more microloans or technical assistance. In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. If enacted, they will have improved the business climate and taken a few more steps to ensure that small businesses have access to capital, are less burdened by regulations and paperwork, have the resources to meet Y2K problems and that women-owned businesses can get loans of sufficient size to expand their businesses. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am joined by Senators Wellstone, Harkin, and Landrieu, to introduce the ``Small Business Loan Enhancement Act.'' To give small businesses more of an advantage, we propose small but significant changes to the Small Business Administration's three primary lending programs: the 7(a) guaranteed business loan program, the 504 Development Company program, and the Microloan program. These changes would foster loans to growing women- owned businesses and enhance small business lending by saving costs for small business borrowers, reducing paperwork for lenders, and increasing available capital for microloans and technical assistance. This bill will also enable small businesses to use SBA's most popular loan guarantee program to fix year 2000 problems. Women-owned businesses are increasing in number, range, diversity and earning power. They constitute one-third of the 23 million small businesses in the United States, contribute more than $2.38 trillion annually in revenues to the economy and range in industry from advertising agencies to manufacturing. Addressing the special needs of women-owned businesses serves not only these entrepreneurs, but also the economic strength of this nation as a whole. Since 1992, SBA has managed to increase access to capital for women and has worked in earnest to move women entrepreneurs away from expensive credit card financing to more affordable loans for financing their business ventures. While the percentage of 504 loans to women-owned businesses has increased from 4.2 percent in 1987 to 14.7 percent in 1998, we need to increase lending opportunities to better reflect that 40 percent of all businesses are owned by women. By expanding the public policy goals of the 504 loan program to include women-owned businesses, we are ensuring that loans to eligible women business owners aren't capped at $750,000 but are now available for as much as $1 million. According to Certified Development Company professionals, loan underwriters are conservative when it comes to approving loans for more than $750,000 and that this directive would undoubtedly help eligible women business owners get the financing they need to expand their facilities and buy equipment as their businesses grow. In addition to increasing access to capital, the SBA plays a critical role in eliminating barriers that keep entrepreneurs from entering the economy, reducing regulatory burdens and lowering transaction costs. The Senate has an opportunity to reduce time and costs to both lenders and small business borrowers in real estate transactions by modernizing appraisal requirements for real estate transactions for 7(a) and 504 loans. Under current operating procedures, where more than $100,000 of the authorized loan proceeds in a financing package includes real estate (acquisition, construction and improvement to land and buildings), SBA requires a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal. Our bill would raise the requisite appraisal amount to $250,000, consistent with other agencies, including, among others, the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of Thrift Supervision. Raising the threshold does not increase the government's risk in these loans because the bill specifies that lenders must require a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal on loans less than $250,000 if that is their standard for similar non-SBA loans. Depending on the area of the country, savings in the 7(a) and 504 programs are estimated to be from $1,000 to $5,000 per loan by requiring an evaluation instead of a state-certified or state-licensed appraisal. In the 504 program, this change is estimated to save money for 2,000 out of the some 6,000 annual 504 borrowers, which are often minority and women-owned businesses. To complement those regulatory improvements, this bill also encourages lenders to use the 7(a) program for their borrowers by streamlining paperwork requirements those lenders must complete after a 7(a) loan defaults. Two years ago, Congress enacted a requirement that reduced by one percent the interest rate paid on the guaranteed portion of defaulted 7(a) loans. Although the change was expected to substantially decrease the subsidy costs of the program, this has not proved to be the case. Instead, it has created a paperwork burden disproportionately high compared to the savings realized. To help small businesses meet the escalating challenges of the Year 2000 computer problem, also called the Y2K problem, this bill clarifies Congressional intent that the 7(a) guaranteed loan program be used for this purpose. As amended, the 7(a) loan program will specify that small businesses can use these loans to finance the cost of making their systems and computers Y2K-compliant. In addition to legitimate concerns about function and survival that make this provision important for small businesses, Y2K compliance will also be a regulatory concern for bankers and small business borrowers. We understand that bank regulators will be requiring lenders to survey their borrowers and to certify that they are Y2K-compliant. Congress recognizes that small businesses may be harmed by the Y2K problem and that the 7(a) program is an appropriate means and established SBA program that can immediately help them deal with it. In fiscal year 1997, the 7(a) loan program reached more than 40,000 businesses, making 45,288 loans and approving loans totalling $9.5 billion. The last component of this bill amends SBA's Microloan program. This important economic development tool has, in six short years, provided close to 7,000 microloans worth some $68 million. More than 40 percent of those loans went to women, 42 percent went to minorities, and 11 percent went to veterans. This program, which provides loans that average $10,000 and can be for as little as a few hundred dollars, has improved the landscape of some our country's poorest communities, creating jobs, helping people move from public assistance to weekly paychecks, and contributing to the tax base. As stated in a July Boston Business Journal article, ``There are many people out there who can't get traditional bank loans because they have bad credit histories, or no credit histories or no assets.'' In spite of these realities that make microentrepreneurs too risky for banks, the government has suffered no losses in this program. It is successful because it helps entrepreneurs turn their talents into businesses, such as a furniture upholsterer or a pet shop, and then augments the capital infusion by providing technical assistance to teach microentrepreneurs how to run a successful business. This amendment would authorize the SBA Administrator to reduce an microlender's loan loss reserve (a reserve of cash to guarantee that the government is paid back if a loan defaults) from 15 percent to not less than ten percent after an intermediary has been participating in the microloan program for at least five years and has demonstrated its ability to maintain a healthy loan fund. Each microlender's loan loss reserve will be established based on its average loss rate for the previous five-year period. Because of the program's success so far, 36 out of 42 microlenders would qualify under this bill's requirements to maintain a loan loss reserve of ten percent rather than 15 percent. The proposed change would continue to protect the government's interest in these loans and at the same time enhance the program because it frees up cash that microlenders can reprogram for more microloans or technical assistance. In closing, I want to again thank my colleagues for supporting this bill. If enacted, they will have improved the business climate and taken a few more steps to ensure that small businesses have access to capital, are less burdened by regulations and paperwork, have the resources to meet Y2K problems and that women-owned businesses can get loans of sufficient size to expand their businesses. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for their support and ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the leader for that important connection to the real history and the reality of what we are talking about. In 1988, both parties--Democrats and Republicans--raised $45 million combined in so-called ``soft money''--$45 million only 10 years ago. In 1992, that number doubled to $90 million. And in the last race in 1996 when this Senator was running, that number rose to $262 million. Everyone knows that this time, in 1998, even more money will be spent, and everyone knows that money is being spent outside of the spirit of the law. It is being spent to directly impact candidacies to elect candidates even though it is so-called ``under the issue exception'' of the first amendment. We have a very, very fundamental challenge. I thank the distinguished leader for his persistence and for his commitment to the notion that this issue is going to find its footing, its honest footing; it is going to find a way to penetrate the cynicism and the skepticism; and we are somehow going to break through and let the American people know that a majority of the U.S. Senate wants campaign finance reform and is prepared to vote for the Shays-Meehan bill now. There is only one thing stopping us. It is called the Republican majority. They don't want this to happen. They don't want it to happen because they are in favor of incumbency protection. I am sure that the Democrat leader would agree with me that this really is one of the most fundamental and important changes we could make because how we can change health care, how we can affect education, how we can properly have all the disparate elements of American society represented is ultimately decided by the amount of money in our campaigns. I am sure that the leader will agree with me that if we are going to be a democracy representing all of America, we simply have to make this process more accessible and more available to the average person and to all Americans.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the answer of the leader. I ask him further if he would agree that despite the fact that there is a great difficulty in the current atmosphere in this country and in the context within which our politics is being played out in Washington and in the national media--there is a great difficulty in conveying to the public the importance of an issue, but I assume that the leader would agree with me that all the great words that are spoken on the floor of the Senate, all of the meaning of this institution, all of the history that is wrapped up in this most watched and intriguing and certainly successful experiment in democracy on the face of the planet, that all of us really are facing a fundamental distortion that the American people understand today--in a process that has seen the cost of elections rise more than 100 percent; more and more millions of dollars are being spent and less and less Americans are able to access the system. Less and less people are able to take part, and more and more special interests are taking the system and defining it in terms of the money that they have available to them. I assume that the leader will share with me that this is not an ordinary issue that we are talking about. This is something that goes to the fundamental notion of what kind of democracy we market to the rest of the world, and that if we are not capable of changing our own house and putting in order this system, then we lose something, not just with respect to our democracy at home, but with respect to the rest of the world. I assume the leader will share with me and others here that, somehow, we have a responsibility in the next days to get this issue to rise to the full measure of importance that it has. I also assume the leader shares with me the view that, otherwise, what happened in the House becomes a sham, that the House may have taken a freebie vote, knowing that all they had to do was rely on the leadership of the Senate to say, ``We are not going to let it come up; we are going to let the parliamentary process kill this.'' I assume the leader will agree with me that that would do an enormous disservice to the full measure of what this issue is really all about.

Mr. KERRY. I ask the leader further, what options, then, might be available to the minority at this point in order to try to make clear our serious determination to see this issue properly addressed in the U.S. Senate?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the leader. I will ask the leader, first of all, a series of questions. My first question is, I assume the leader has reached out to the majority leader of the Senate and suggested to him that there is a way in which the U.S. Senate could take an appropriate amount of time to properly deal with this effort. I wonder if the leader will share with the Senate and with the country what the response is of the Republican side of the aisle with respect to the ability of the Senate to carry out its responsibilities here.