John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, to whom I have listened over the course of the last months, who has asked extraordinarily important questions of the Senate. While we differ on the vote, we don't differ in our goals or on what we believe have been the failures of diplomacy over the course of the last months. He is absolutely correct about the failure to be forthcoming. One can desire a goal and hope that an administration is in fact going to implement the goal effectively. Many of us feel bitterly disappointed by the way in which diplomacy, relations with Congress, the transparency, the degree of effectiveness of our involvement with allies--there are a host of failures that raise extraordinary questions. I thank the Senator from West Virginia whose years here are unparalleled and whose credibility as a consequence is unmatched by anybody here.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the amendment of the Senator from California. I thank her for bringing this amendment, which is one of the most important issues we will vote on in the Senate this year. It is not just a vote to protect a refuge; it is a refuge; it is a pristine wilderness. The words ``pristine wilderness'' together mean something. They carry more than just the notion of a policy put in place by President Eisenhower in 1960, I believe, reinforced later in the Alaska Lands Act signed by President Carter. This is a national treasure. The words ``pristine wilderness'' both are destroyed, the entire concept is destroyed, by what this amendment seeks to do, may I add, not in the normal process of legislation as we approach it here but slipped into the budget for the specific purpose of trying to bypass the normal rules of the Senate. Now, certainly, any tool is available to anybody, but I think Americans ought to judge whether or not they want a pristine wilderness destroyed in its pristineness and in its wilderness for the sake of a minor, tiny percentage of oil that has no impact on world oil prices, has no impact--or negligible, to be accurate, about a 2 percent impact ultimately, 10 years from now, if it delivers its potential--on the total amount of dependency on American oil from abroad. In 1975, when President Carter first began to wrestle with the issue of America's dependency on oil, we were about 35 percent dependent on foreign oil. At that time, we sought to reduce that dependency and to create alternatives, renewables, and to move to a different kind of energy base. Today, after all the talk of seriousness of purpose, guess what. The United States of America is no longer 35 percent dependent; we are approaching 60 percent dependency on foreign oil. God only gave us 3 percent of the world's oil. Saudi Arabia has 46 percent. The Middle East, in total, has about 65 percent. So do the equation. Any kid in America can do this equation. If the United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil, and the Middle East has 65 percent of the world's oil, and your demand for oil is going from 35 percent to 60 percent, a 2 percent difference for the destruction of the wilderness does not solve America's problem. The bottom line is, there is only one way to solve America's problem. You cannot drill your way out of America's problem. You have to invent your way out of America's problem. Inventing your way out of America's problem means beginning to push the curve on the creation of an entirely differently based economy--a hydrogen-based economy or some other. We could do that if we were to harness the energy of our colleges, universities, and venture capitalists and create the tens of thousands--if not hundreds of thousands--of high-value-added jobs that would come from pushing in that direction. So my objection is to the proposal by those who want to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, which is shortsighted and destructive of a wilderness. This photograph represents what the wilderness looks like today. If you start drilling, this other photo is what it could look like. It will be no longer a wilderness. Most recently, the GAO issued a report that said there is an enormous negative downside to the environment in those areas in which we have already agreed to drill. In those areas in which we have already agreed to drill, there is an extraordinary amount of drilling left to be done. We have enormous leases that are available and open that can be pursued. We don't need to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. In fact, the most important oil companies of the country are not particularly seeking to drill there. They don't have any intention of drilling there, except to the degree that it is opened up and someone else goes there; then they may believe, competitively, that they have to. Lord John Brown, the president of British Petroleum--which has been working hard to push solar and alternatives and renewables--said publicly: We don't really need the Alaska refuge. We don't think it is the principal place to drill. The real drilling for America's future is offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. I know some will argue that it is an energy security magic bullet. But I have described why it is not a magic bullet, No. 1. No. 2, this is not sound energy policy. The United States of America is still spending, I think, about $6 billion in order to provide oil and gas fossil fuel incentives. The total incentive of the United States for alternatives and renewables is $24 million. Billions of dollars to go after fossil fuel, which we know is a dependency that leads us nowhere--in fact, it leads us to increased global warming problems, to increased dependency on foreign oil--$24 million going into alternatives and renewables. Europe has a much better sense of the future than, apparently, this administration in the United States right now. Great Britain has determined that they are going to provide almost all of their electricity in Great Britain--even though they are oil rich in the North Sea--from windmills, wind power, over the next 10 to 15 years. If you go to Holland or Denmark, you will see in the bays off those countries windmills that are providing enormous power. In Minnesota, in our own country, I have met farmers who are actually earning more providing wind power to their local farm neighbors. From windmills, wind power, they are earning more, providing some 2,000 farms with power, than they are from farming. Think of what you could do if you began to move to biomass ethanol or corn-based ethanol for Iowa and for other States that grow and farm, which are already in huge dependency on the U.S. Government for billions of dollars--to do nothing or to not grow. We are completely on the wrong track. This effort to try to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge is a misguided effort to try to keep America locked into a place that takes us nowhere. I believe we need to open up a different future for this country, and the Energy Information Administration concluded last year that drilling in the refuge would only reduce oil imports by a tiny 2 percent, which provides no security to the United States at all. It is not good environmental policy, it is a terrible excuse for an energy policy, and it seems to me that domestic and renewable sources are urgently needed. Why? Well, no foreign government can embargo them. No Saddam Hussein can seize control of them and reduce the flow. No cartel can play games with them. No American soldier will ever have to go and protect them with his or her life because they are here, they are home grown, and they don't put us into that predicament. So I will be voting in support of Senator Boxer's amendment in favor of protecting the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I strongly urge my colleagues to do the same. We have had this debate before. A majority of the Senate had decided previously that this does not contribute to the energy policy of our Nation, and I hope we will stand by that decision. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the request was for 10 to 15 minutes. That is all. Then I will yield the floor. The Senator can proceed as he desires.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed for 1 minute outside of that time. I want to say a few words to the Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. KERRY. For parliamentary purposes, I don't want to have the Senator from Alaska believe something was abused here. I would like to see what he would like. There was no effort to try to slide something by. There was nobody else on the floor, and the Senator just asked if we could have a little bit of time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be re-introducing legislation, the ``Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act,'' designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. Currently as the Ranking Member, and last Congress as Chairman, of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy on increasing the role of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. Not only is it an issue of fairness, but it is in the best interest of our economy and our national security. In fact, the Small Business Administration was created after World War II to ensure that small businesses would be viable for defense-related production, to build a diverse pool of suppliers so that the country would not be dependent on only a handful of companies. As this country prepares for war in Iraq and continues the on-going war on terrorism, we should be improving that viability and expanding that diverse pool. We should be increasing our business with small business, not reducing it. It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving legislation forward in a bipartisan manner--the members of my Committee understand we represent the interests of all of our nation's small businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of Federal procurement and ensuring that our nation's small businesses receive their fair share of procurement opportunities. The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to prevent Federal agencies from circumventing small business protections with regard to the practice known as contract bundling. Few issues have so strongly galvanized the small businesses contacting community as the practice of contract bundling, which occurs when procurement contracts are combined to form large contracts, often spread over large geographic areas, and results in minimal or no small business participation. Many supporters of the practice of contract bundling point to its cost savings--they claim it saves the taxpayer money to lump contracts together. Unfortunately, there is little evidence supporting this claim, and too many contracts are bundled without the required economic research designed to determine if a bundled contract will actually result in a cost savings. The SBA's Office of Advocacy, an independent body within the SBA, estimated that for every increase of 100 bundled contracts, there was a decrease of over 106 individual contracts issued to small firms. For every $100 awarded on a bundled contract, there was a decrease of $33 to small business. This cost small businesses an estimated $13 billion in 2001. The Office of Advocacy arrived at these conclusions using a conservative definition of what constitutes a bundled contract. Therefore, the negative impact on small businesses from contract bundling is likely more severe. While seemingly an efficient and cost-effective means for Federal agencies to conduct business, bundled contracts are anti-competitive. And they are anti-small business. When a Federal agency bundles contracts, it limits small businesses' ability to bid for the new bundled contract, thus limiting competition. Small businesses are consistently touted as more innovative, providing better and cheaper services than their larger counterparts. But when forced to bid for mega-contracts, at times across large geographic areas, few, if any, small businesses can be expected to compete. By driving small business from the Federal marketplace, contract bundling will actually drive up the costs of goods and services purchased by the Federal government because competition will be limited and our economy will be deprived of possible innovations brought about by small businesses. While there are current laws in place intended to require Federal agencies to conduct market research before bundling a contract, loopholes in the current definition of a bundled contract allow them to often skirt these safeguards. Our legislation changes the name ``bundled contract'' to ``consolidated contract,'' strengthens the definition of a consolidated contract, and closes the loopholes in the existing definition to prevent Federal agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards intended to ensure that separate contracts are consolidated for economic reasons, not administrative expediency. The new definition relies on a simple premise: if you combine contracts, be it new contracts, existing contracts or a combination thereof, you are consolidating them and would need to take the necessary steps to ensure it is justified economically before proceeding. Our legislation also alters the current Small Business Act requirements regarding procurement strategies when a contract is consolidated to include a threshold level for triggering the economic research requirements. Previously, any consolidated contract would trigger the economic research requirements, something considered onerous by many Federal agencies and often cited as the reason for circumventing the law. The new procurement strategies section of the Small Business Act would require a statement of benefits and a justification for any consolidated contract over $2 million and a more extensive analysis, corresponding to current requirements for any consolidated contract, for consolidations over $5 million. In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $2 million, the agency must put forth the benefits expected from the contract, identify alternatives that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation and include a specific determination that the consolidation is necessary and justified. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and justified may be determined simply through administrative and personnel savings, but there must be actual savings. In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $5 million, an agency must, in addition to the above: conduct current market research to demonstrate that the consolidation will result in costs savings, quality improvements, reduction in acquisition times, or better terms and conditions; include an assessment as to the specific impediments to small business participation resulting from the consolidation; and specify actions designed to maximize small business participation as subcontractors and suppliers for the consolidated contract. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and justified may not be determined through administrative and personnel savings alone unless those savings will be substantial for these larger contracts. By establishing this dual-threshold system, we have placed the emphasis for the economic research on contracts more likely to preclude small business participation, while not ceding smaller contracts to the whims of a Federal agency. This change, coupled with a clear definition of a consolidated contract, should be enough to garner compliance. However, if Federal agencies continue to consolidate contracts when there is no justification, fail to conduct the required economic research, or fail to provide procurement opportunities to small businesses, the Committee would have little choice but to consider legislative changes requiring punitive measures for these Federal agencies. This is a step I have been reluctant to take in the past. However, I am optimistic that such a step will not be necessary and that the fair and reasonable system established under this legislation will be effective. I would once again like to thank my fellow sponsors, Senators Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Pryor for their continued support on this issue. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be re-introducing legislation, the ``Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act,'' designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. Currently as the Ranking Member, and last Congress as Chairman, of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy on increasing the role of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. Not only is it an issue of fairness, but it is in the best interest of our economy and our national security. In fact, the Small Business Administration was created after World War II to ensure that small businesses would be viable for defense-related production, to build a diverse pool of suppliers so that the country would not be dependent on only a handful of companies. As this country prepares for war in Iraq and continues the on-going war on terrorism, we should be improving that viability and expanding that diverse pool. We should be increasing our business with small business, not reducing it. It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving legislation forward in a bipartisan manner--the members of my Committee understand we represent the interests of all of our nation's small businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of Federal procurement and ensuring that our nation's small businesses receive their fair share of procurement opportunities. The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to prevent Federal agencies from circumventing small business protections with regard to the practice known as contract bundling. Few issues have so strongly galvanized the small businesses contacting community as the practice of contract bundling, which occurs when procurement contracts are combined to form large contracts, often spread over large geographic areas, and results in minimal or no small business participation. Many supporters of the practice of contract bundling point to its cost savings--they claim it saves the taxpayer money to lump contracts together. Unfortunately, there is little evidence supporting this claim, and too many contracts are bundled without the required economic research designed to determine if a bundled contract will actually result in a cost savings. The SBA's Office of Advocacy, an independent body within the SBA, estimated that for every increase of 100 bundled contracts, there was a decrease of over 106 individual contracts issued to small firms. For every $100 awarded on a bundled contract, there was a decrease of $33 to small business. This cost small businesses an estimated $13 billion in 2001. The Office of Advocacy arrived at these conclusions using a conservative definition of what constitutes a bundled contract. Therefore, the negative impact on small businesses from contract bundling is likely more severe. While seemingly an efficient and cost-effective means for Federal agencies to conduct business, bundled contracts are anti-competitive. And they are anti-small business. When a Federal agency bundles contracts, it limits small businesses' ability to bid for the new bundled contract, thus limiting competition. Small businesses are consistently touted as more innovative, providing better and cheaper services than their larger counterparts. But when forced to bid for mega-contracts, at times across large geographic areas, few, if any, small businesses can be expected to compete. By driving small business from the Federal marketplace, contract bundling will actually drive up the costs of goods and services purchased by the Federal government because competition will be limited and our economy will be deprived of possible innovations brought about by small businesses. While there are current laws in place intended to require Federal agencies to conduct market research before bundling a contract, loopholes in the current definition of a bundled contract allow them to often skirt these safeguards. Our legislation changes the name ``bundled contract'' to ``consolidated contract,'' strengthens the definition of a consolidated contract, and closes the loopholes in the existing definition to prevent Federal agencies from circumventing statutory safeguards intended to ensure that separate contracts are consolidated for economic reasons, not administrative expediency. The new definition relies on a simple premise: if you combine contracts, be it new contracts, existing contracts or a combination thereof, you are consolidating them and would need to take the necessary steps to ensure it is justified economically before proceeding. Our legislation also alters the current Small Business Act requirements regarding procurement strategies when a contract is consolidated to include a threshold level for triggering the economic research requirements. Previously, any consolidated contract would trigger the economic research requirements, something considered onerous by many Federal agencies and often cited as the reason for circumventing the law. The new procurement strategies section of the Small Business Act would require a statement of benefits and a justification for any consolidated contract over $2 million and a more extensive analysis, corresponding to current requirements for any consolidated contract, for consolidations over $5 million. In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $2 million, the agency must put forth the benefits expected from the contract, identify alternatives that would involve a lesser degree of consolidation and include a specific determination that the consolidation is necessary and justified. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and justified may be determined simply through administrative and personnel savings, but there must be actual savings. In order to move forward with a consolidated contract over $5 million, an agency must, in addition to the above: conduct current market research to demonstrate that the consolidation will result in costs savings, quality improvements, reduction in acquisition times, or better terms and conditions; include an assessment as to the specific impediments to small business participation resulting from the consolidation; and specify actions designed to maximize small business participation as subcontractors and suppliers for the consolidated contract. The determination that a consolidation is necessary and justified may not be determined through administrative and personnel savings alone unless those savings will be substantial for these larger contracts. By establishing this dual-threshold system, we have placed the emphasis for the economic research on contracts more likely to preclude small business participation, while not ceding smaller contracts to the whims of a Federal agency. This change, coupled with a clear definition of a consolidated contract, should be enough to garner compliance. However, if Federal agencies continue to consolidate contracts when there is no justification, fail to conduct the required economic research, or fail to provide procurement opportunities to small businesses, the Committee would have little choice but to consider legislative changes requiring punitive measures for these Federal agencies. This is a step I have been reluctant to take in the past. However, I am optimistic that such a step will not be necessary and that the fair and reasonable system established under this legislation will be effective. I would once again like to thank my fellow sponsors, Senators Landrieu, Stabenow, Cantwell, and Pryor for their continued support on this issue. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill. I ask that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Sununu. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sties, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Sununu.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation to establish the Freedom's Way National Heritage Area in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. The bill is cosponsored by Senator Kennedy, Senator Gregg and Senator Sununu. The bill proposes to establish a national heritage area including 36 communities in Massachusetts and six communities in New Hampshire. The area has important cultural and natural legacies that are important to New England and the entire Nation. I want to highlight just a few of the reasons I believe this designation makes sense. The Freedom's Way is an ideal candidate because it is rich in historic sties, trails, landscapes and views. The land and the area's resources are pieces of American history and culture. The entire region, and especially places like Lexington and Concord, is important to our country's founding and our political and philosophical principles. Within the 42 communities are truly special places. These include the Minuteman National Historic Park, more than 40 National Register Districts and National Historic Landmarks, the Great Meadows National Wildlife Refuge, Walden Pond State Reservation, Gardener State Park, Harvard Shaker Village and the Shirley Shaker Village. In addition, there is strong grassroots support for this designation. The people of these communities organized themselves in this effort and have now turned to us for assistance. I hope we can provide it. Supporters include elected officials, people dedicated to preserving a small piece of American and New England history, and local business leaders. It is an honor to help their cause. Finally, I am very pleased that Senators from both Massachusetts and New Hampshire have embraced this proposal. I thank Senators Kennedy, Gregg, and Sununu.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Strategic Offensive Reduction Treaty that has been under consideration for a couple of days, also known as the Moscow Treaty, is, in my judgment, in the 18 years I have been here thinking about arms control and certainly as part of the debate in the Foreign Relations Committee and on the floor in the ratification of treaties, as flimsy a treaty as the Senate has ever considered. I believe its faults are many. At best, its defenders contend that it does no harm, but I find fault even in that assessment, and I find fault ultimately in this treaty. The Moscow Treaty promises to reduce the deployed offensive weapons of the United States and Russia to a range of between 1,700 to 2,200 each by December 31, 2012. As far as the treaty goes, that is the highlight. I think, under certain circumstances, one would certainly say that reducing its own number of deployed missiles is a worthy goal and something we want to achieve, but in the world we live in today, simply reducing their deployment, where they are sometimes under better control than they are going to be if they are not deployed, it may, in fact, be taking a dangerous situation and perhaps lending itself to the greater dangers of this particular moment of history. In my assessment, regrettably, the treaty amounts to little more than a series of missed opportunities. Let me be precise about that point. It does not mandate a reduction in total warheads. None must be dismantled. The treaty merely requires both parties to reduce the number of warheads in their operationally deployed arsenals. It provides no timetable for the planned reductions in deployed forces prior to the treaty's 2012 target date. It never requires the destruction of a single launcher. In effect, the treaty allows each side to upload, download, and mix weapons in and out of storage. It contains no verification procedures, and the vast stockpiles of nuclear warheads in this country and in Russia remain unchanged. Nuclear weapons, as we all know, are the legacy of the cold war, the most pressing single threat that we face today as we contemplate dealing with Saddam Hussein and as we wish we were dealing with North Korea. The most pressing threat, however, is really that nuclear weapons, or their lethal components, might fall into the hands of terrorists or irresponsible governments at the head of rogue regimes. This fact makes the provisions of this treaty even more troubling. Instead of requiring the dismantlement of warheads or launchers, the treaty simply requires that on one day in 2012, the sides are to have no more than the 1,700 or 2,200 operationally deployed nuclear weapons. The remaining thousands of weapons will be held in reserve, stockpiled for some other unforeseen need, a need, I might say, in the context of the threats we are looking at in the year 2003 that is extraordinarily hard to explain, particularly when those stockpiled weapons become the risk of stolen, bartered, sold, or blackmailed materials. By their continued existence, they present a tempting target for thieves and for terrorists. It is no secret that there are those who are eager to capitalize on a deadly market for weapons-usable nuclear materials. The GAO has documented numerous failed attempts to smuggle nuclear materials out of Russia. I say to my colleagues that out of 20 of these incidents over the last decade, the materials involved in 13 of the 20 that we know about, and possibly as many as 15, were traced back to Russian sources. I will tell my colleagues from my experience as a law enforcement official that if you know you caught 20 and you know you are operating with limited capacities to detect, anyone ought to be asking the question, How many did we miss and how many will we miss in the future? The great security challenge of our day is to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of those who would do us harm, but this treaty only expands the stockpile of nondeployed warheads in Russia, and in this country for that matter. It may advance some old cold war calculus for arms control, but it is not a part of a broader comprehensive approach to our nuclear relationship with Russia, particularly in the area of threat reduction, and there I think the treaty runs the risk of increasing the danger of nuclear theft by stockpiling thousands of warheads. Obviously, it is the task of all of us to try to make the world more secure, not less secure. As I have said previously, we need to revitalize the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program by giving it the sustained leadership, attention, and funding it deserves. Over the last decade, the United States has spent about $7.5 billion to deactivate 6,000 warheads and destroy thousands of delivery vehicles. Why would we spend $7.5 billion to deactivate and destroy and then bring a treaty to the floor of the Senate which does neither? We have to make good on our pledge of $10 billion over the next 10 years to the G-8 threat reduction partnership, and we need to encourage the good faith participation of our allies. But we know that even those efforts are not going to be enough. In 2001, the bipartisan Baker-Cutler commission concluded that for our efforts to secure Russia's nuclear weapons materials and expertise to succeed, we will have to spend $30 billion over the next 10 years. That is a challenge we ought to be meeting as a primary goal prior even to the implementation of this treaty. The treaty's supporters have noted that its brevity is important, as if the length of a treaty somehow constitutes a real accomplishment, and that provisions in it are a reflection of our new relationship with Russia. My question is, if we are in a new environment with Russia, then why not include verification and transparency measures that reflect that new environment? The treaty does not mandate the dismantlement or destruction of warheads or launchers. Yet the provisions of this treaty turn upon themselves and the very logic underpinning the treaty as argued by its proponents. For instance, they argue, as Secretary Rumsfeld did before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last summer, that no arms control treaty in the history of our country has ever required the destruction of warheads. Well, if this treaty is based on the conclusion that we live in a different time, if this treaty is based on the conclusion that the cold war is really over, if this treaty is based on the conclusion that we have a new and better relationship with Russia and that we therefore can look to a new period, why then keep these warheads in storage for another day when the numbers we are reducing to under any SIOP or any warfighting plan we have ever seen are sufficient to destroy the world several times over? It simply does not make sense. Why expand the stockpiles of stored nuclear warheads and materials when we know to a certainty, as the CIA tells us, we do not have the capacity today to safeguard those materials? Why would we do that when we are prepared to go to war against Iraq to prevent Iraq from illicitly receiving the very kinds of materials that we are about to encourage the capacity for others to seek out in the same way as we have seen others do in those 20 examples I cited a few moments ago? The logic escapes anybody who stops to really think about what we are doing with this treaty. If we have really entered a new age and a new relationship with Russia--and I believe we have in fact--then neither Russia nor the United States should hedge on a commitment to real and meaningful arms reduction to an agreement that addresses in its very fabric the new and real threat of proliferation by theft or diversion. By doing so, we would send a signal to Saddam Hussein and to the rest of the world that we are not hedging our bets; that, in fact, we are serious and we are setting an example, and that the rest of the world is earning the justification for moving to disarm another nation for moving to nuclearization. Those same supporters who say we need to hold on to vast stockpiles of nuclear warheads ironically argue that the profoundly changed nature of the relationship with Russia means we need not have negotiated verification regimes for this treaty. There are still those in this country, as surely there are some in Russia, who continue to view our former cold war adversary with some measure of suspicion and distrust. This treaty had the potential to deepen Russian-American cooperation and confidence building. If it had included verification measures, the treaty would have silenced skeptics of our new relationship by demonstrating mutual weapons reductions through inspection and verification. But, regrettably, it does not. Both sides understand that each has the potential to redeploy all of these weapons unless we can verify, at a minimum, their location. So by this feature alone, this treaty contains the seeds of future doubt and suspicion. Verification ought to be a crucial aspect of our effort to secure nuclear weapons and materials, and if we cannot be certain that the numbers of deployed warheads have been reduced, we will not be certain of the magnitude of the challenge of securing those materials. Since the height of the arms control negotiations, now almost two decades ago, the cry of many of my colleagues on the other side of this aisle--which I remember well for years as we tried to move through various arms control treaties--was appropriately, as Ronald Reagan said, ``trust but verify.'' This treaty exhibits a lot of trust but no verification. Accordingly, I am offering an amendment to help address the critical issue of verification. It is a very simple amendment, and it really ought not to present a problem to colleagues. If we are to have more confidence in this treaty, we should be working with the Russians now to achieve a viable regime to verify that reductions are indeed taking place on both sides and that they are taking place in a way that safeguards those materials. In the absence of any mutually agreed upon verification regime, we are left to rely on national means and methods to determine whether or not Russia is making the reductions promised on a reasonable schedule to meet the December 2012 target date. My amendment adds a new condition to the Resolution of Ratification requiring an annual report prepared by the intelligence community on our ability to monitor Russia's compliance with the Moscow Treaty. For all those who have worried about trusting, verifying, and knowing what is happening, this is a very simple requirement, that we learn from our own intelligence community about our capacity to safeguard the interests of the United States of America. This national intelligence estimate must also provide an assessment of the ability of the United States to monitor compliance with the SORT treaty through the verification regime of the START I treaty and our ability to monitor compliance after the START I verification regime terminates in 2009. Perhaps most notably, under my amendment the intelligence community is required to inform us of the mechanisms they need to verify treaty compliance with a high degree of confidence, including consideration of further agreements between the United States and the Russian Federation, mutual data exchanges between the two countries, improvements in the transparency of reductions that are called for in this treaty, technological improvements, and other appropriate mechanisms. I have long viewed this treaty's lack of verification measures as a source of grave concern. I spoke out in the Foreign Relations Committee on each occasion that this treaty was considered. Last summer, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held hearings on the treaty, I noted the huge contradiction in it, the lack of verification and accountability in the reduction, and the fear that these weapons or materials might fall into the hands of terrorists. While I understand that we cannot mandate the dismantlement of warheads or the security of nuclear materials without renegotiating this treaty, it is critical we have an understanding, in order to protect the security interests of our country, of our own ability to monitor Russian compliance, where that ability might fall short and to understand a perspective on what we simply do not know. Without meaningful verification, there is a great deal that we will not know. And in this case, what we don't know can, indeed, hurt us in this dangerous world that we live in today. Last month, I voted in committee to bring the treaty to the full Senate but not without reservation. At that time, I registered my serious concern about the treaty's lack of verification measures, about the lack of milestones or targets other than the 2012 date, and about the peculiarity of a treaty that expires on the very same day that it reaches its intended goal. The amendment I offer today is intended to drive at the heart of the verification issue. I know several of my colleagues have offered or talked about other important fixes to address the shortcomings of this treaty, and I applaud their efforts, but at its heart this treaty represents a missed opportunity. It almost represents a treaty for the sake of a treaty without regard to the longer term security interests and strategic interests of the United States. We missed an opportunity to help make the world safer for our children in the long term. We missed an opportunity to eliminate thousands of nuclear weapons for the long term, and not just to reduce deployed weapons for the short term. We missed an opportunity to advance American-Russian relations in a way that, in fact, builds a stronger foundation of trust between our two great countries. By addressing the verification issue as envisioned in my amendment, I believe we can at least learn from our own intelligence community-- which we ought to be willing to trust--what more needs to be done to provide the transparency and verification so essential to any agreement of this nature. If we are to make America safer, and we must, it will take more than cosmetic treaties that leave Russia's nuclear arsenal in place. As Ronald Reagan told the Nation, ``History has shown that peace will not come, nor will our freedoms be preserved, by good will alone.'' We have work still to be done to meet today's challenges, and I believe one of those challenges is to fix the Moscow Treaty. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as the chairman of the committee knows, I have so much respect for him. We rarely have disagreements. In essence, he sort of made my case just now. I have never argued about the destruction of some of the missiles that are going in. I talked about the warheads and fissionable material. Fissionable material is not in the missile; it is in the warhead. The distinguished chairman just said, I wish we had a better sense of the disposition of those warheads. I wish we had a better sense of the disposition of those warheads. All I am asking for is that we ask our intelligence communities. Is the Senate scared of asking its own intelligence community for a report on our capacity to know where those materials are and what is happening? That is all I am asking. On the floor of the Senate, I cannot go into what we have heard in private, in classified sessions. But this amendment is based on my knowledge of what our intelligence community is concerned about and what I believe we ought to be concerned about in this country. So as the chairman says, I wish we had a better sense of what is happening to those warheads. If we are willing to go to war in Iraq because we think it is dangerous for that man to have nuclear warheads, and we know that 15 out of some 20 efforts to transfer this material has come from Russia, we better be concerned about these warheads. That is what this is about. That is precisely what involves the security of the people of the United States of America, and that is what this amendment is about. I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the comments of the distinguished ranking Member. Let me be very clear. I am not asking for anything to be done here that isn't monitoring of this treaty. If you look on page 2 of my amendment, it says I am looking for ``an estimate, for each strategic nuclear weapons system in the Russian Federation, of the confidence of the United States, whether low, medium, or high, in the capability of the United States to monitor the deployed warheads of such systems.'' I am looking for ``an assessment of the capability of the United States to monitor the compliance of the Russian Federation with the requirements of the Treaty.'' This is to make sure we can see that this treaty, as the minority ranking Member has called it, as limited as it is--I am trying to making sure we can comply and know that we have the ascertainment of our intelligence community with respect thereto. That is precisely what my amendment does. I yield my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

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

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal firefighters are also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Park Service. From first response emergency care services on military installations around the world to front-line defense against raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women to protect our national interests. Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for Federal firefighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government has to offer. Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to create a presumptive disability for firefighters who become disabled by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated in this important legislation would be considered job related for purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement--entitling those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that they deserve. Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and other hazardous substances with which Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal firefighters' counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local levels. The effort behind the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2003 marks a significant advancement for firefighter health and safety. Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the risks that firefighters and emergency response personnel face every day. Federal firefighters deserve our highest commendation and it is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees. The job of firefighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose new threats to firefighter health and safety. The Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 will help protect the lives of our firefighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health and safety. I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 on behalf of our Nation's Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal firefighters are also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the U.S. Park Service. From first response emergency care services on military installations around the world to front-line defense against raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women to protect our national interests. Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for Federal firefighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government has to offer. Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to create a presumptive disability for firefighters who become disabled by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated in this important legislation would be considered job related for purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement--entitling those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that they deserve. Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and other hazardous substances with which Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal firefighters' counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local levels. The effort behind the Federal Firefighters Fairness Act of 2003 marks a significant advancement for firefighter health and safety. Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the risks that firefighters and emergency response personnel face every day. Federal firefighters deserve our highest commendation and it is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees. The job of firefighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose new threats to firefighter health and safety. The Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 will help protect the lives of our firefighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health and safety. I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2003 on behalf of our Nation's Federal firefighters and emergency response personnel.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only small businesses owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government, bureaucracy. The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. And adding insult to injury, in those States where the Agency declared drought disasters, it limited assistance to only farm-related small businesses. My friends, the SBA has the authority to help all small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to small business drought victims that need it. This bill deserves quick consideration. Time is of the essence for drought victims. This legislation has been through a thorough review, and there is no reason to duplicate our efforts. The Committee considered virtually identical legislation last year and voted unanimously to pass it. In addition to approval by the committee of jurisdiction, OMB approved identical legislation last year. The bill I am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the Administration, and I see no reason to delay passage. Senator Bond has been a real champion on this issue, and I thank him. I look forward to having a similar partnership with Senator Snowe. I thank all my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Bond, Landrieu, Edwards, Johnson, Bingaman, Levin, Baucus, Daschle, Hollings, Lieberman, Warner, Crapo, Harkin, and Reid. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and letters of support from governors who advocated prompt passage of this legislation last year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only small businesses owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government, bureaucracy. The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day this legislation was introduced last year, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. And adding insult to injury, in those States where the Agency declared drought disasters, it limited assistance to only farm-related small businesses. My friends, the SBA has the authority to help all small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2003 would force SBA to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to small business drought victims that need it. This bill deserves quick consideration. Time is of the essence for drought victims. This legislation has been through a thorough review, and there is no reason to duplicate our efforts. The Committee considered virtually identical legislation last year and voted unanimously to pass it. In addition to approval by the committee of jurisdiction, OMB approved identical legislation last year. The bill I am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the Administration, and I see no reason to delay passage. Senator Bond has been a real champion on this issue, and I thank him. I look forward to having a similar partnership with Senator Snowe. I thank all my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Bond, Landrieu, Edwards, Johnson, Bingaman, Levin, Baucus, Daschle, Hollings, Lieberman, Warner, Crapo, Harkin, and Reid. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill, and letters of support from governors who advocated prompt passage of this legislation last year, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my good friend Senator McCain to introduce our bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal. Bestowing upon Jackie Robinson this great honor recognizes not only his stunning athletic accomplishments but also his profound contribution to the advancement of civil rights in the United States. Jackie Roosevelt Robinson was born on January 31, 1919, in Cairo, GA and was the youngest of 5 children. Robinson attended the University of California at Los Angeles where he lettered in football, basketball, baseball, and track, and he was widely regarded as the finest all- around athlete at that time. After a three-year stint in the U.S. Army, Jackie Robinson began playing professional baseball, at first in the American Negro League. Then in 1947, in a historic move that ended decades of discrimination against blacks in baseball, Jackie Robinson became the first African-American to sign a Major League Baseball contract. That same year he won the National League's Rookie of the Year Award. In 1949, he was voted the National League's Most Valuable Player by the Baseball Writers Association, and in 1962, he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Jackie Robinson's signing to the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 is so significant because it came before the United States military was desegregated, before the civil rights marches in the South, and before the historic ruling in Brown v. The Board of Education, and it engaged the American people in a constructive conversation about race. Off the field Jackie Robinson was a business leader, a civil rights leader, and a human rights leader. As one of the most popular people in America, in one poll in 1947 he finished ahead of President Harry Truman, General Dwight Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, and Bob Hope, finishing only behind Bing Crosby, Jackie Robinson encouraged the fair treatment of all people. His ideas and principles influenced some of America's greatest politicians, including John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower. Jackie Robinson was more than a sports hero he was an American hero. And it is time for Congress to recognize his heroic contributions. On January 31, 2003 on what would have been Jackie Robinson's 84th birthday, a seminar entitled ``Red Sox Tribute to Jackie Robinson'' was held at Fenway Park in Boston. During that tribute Larry Lucchino, President and CEO of the Boston Red Sox, aptly summed up Jackie Robinson's off-field contributions to American society. He said, ``Martin Luther King once said that he could not do what he was doing unless Jackie Robinson had done what he did.'' I urge my colleagues to join us in honoring this great American by cosponsoring our bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to join today with my good friend Senator McCain to introduce our bill to award Jackie Robinson the Congressional Gold Medal. Bestowing upon Jackie Robinson this great honor recognizes not only his stunning athletic accomplishments but also his profound contribution to the advancement of civil rights in the United States. Jackie Roosevelt Robinson was born on January 31, 1919, in Cairo, GA and was the youngest of 5 children. Robinson attended the University of California at Los Angeles where he lettered in football, basketball, baseball, and track, and he was widely regarded as the finest all- around athlete at that time. After a three-year stint in the U.S. Army, Jackie Robinson began playing professional baseball, at first in the American Negro League. Then in 1947, in a historic move that ended decades of discrimination against blacks in baseball, Jackie Robinson became the first African-American to sign a Major League Baseball contract. That same year he won the National League's Rookie of the Year Award. In 1949, he was voted the National League's Most Valuable Player by the Baseball Writers Association, and in 1962, he was elected to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Jackie Robinson's signing to the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947 is so significant because it came before the United States military was desegregated, before the civil rights marches in the South, and before the historic ruling in Brown v. The Board of Education, and it engaged the American people in a constructive conversation about race. Off the field Jackie Robinson was a business leader, a civil rights leader, and a human rights leader. As one of the most popular people in America, in one poll in 1947 he finished ahead of President Harry Truman, General Dwight Eisenhower, General Douglas MacArthur, and Bob Hope, finishing only behind Bing Crosby, Jackie Robinson encouraged the fair treatment of all people. His ideas and principles influenced some of America's greatest politicians, including John F. Kennedy and Dwight Eisenhower. Jackie Robinson was more than a sports hero he was an American hero. And it is time for Congress to recognize his heroic contributions. On January 31, 2003 on what would have been Jackie Robinson's 84th birthday, a seminar entitled ``Red Sox Tribute to Jackie Robinson'' was held at Fenway Park in Boston. During that tribute Larry Lucchino, President and CEO of the Boston Red Sox, aptly summed up Jackie Robinson's off-field contributions to American society. He said, ``Martin Luther King once said that he could not do what he was doing unless Jackie Robinson had done what he did.'' I urge my colleagues to join us in honoring this great American by cosponsoring our bill to award him the Congressional Gold Medal. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to the men and women who lost their lives on the space shuttle Columbia and offer my condolences to their families and to the entire NASA community. Like all Americans, they are in my thoughts and prayers during this difficult time. Early Saturday morning, the crew of the Columbia was preparing to reenter the Earth's atmosphere after a 16-day mission to conduct scientific experiments. Five of the seven astronauts were on their first space flight. By all accounts, the mission had been a success, and some of the astronauts jokingly complained to mission controllers about having to come home. The crew included Dr. Kalpana Chawla, a mechanical engineer and Indian immigrant, William McCool, a Navy test pilot, Dr. David Brown, a Navy physician, COL Ilan Ramon, an Israeli fighter pilot, Laurel Clark, a Navy flight surgeon, and two veterans of the space program, Mission Commander Rick Husband and Payload Commander Michael Anderson. Fourteen minutes into reentry, as the shuttle passed through the upper atmosphere and reached temperatures as hot as 2,000 degrees, it broke apart above northern Texas, taking these seven remarkable individuals down with it. This was a world tragedy as much as it was an American tragedy. The crew of the Columbia reflected our diverse planet as much as it did a cross section of America. Dr. Chawla was a hero in her native India, as was COL Ramon in Israel. Both were on their first space flight. Millions of people around the world reacted in horror as they watched footage of the Columbia streaking across the Texas sky. They share in our deep sense of grief. I am confident we will complete an exhaustive investigation to determine what went wrong. All questions need to be answered before we send our best and brightest back into space. However, I firmly believe that we must press on. We must continue the exploration of space. I have always supported the space program because I believe it is in the best interests of mankind to unlock the mysteries of life on earth and beyond. The shuttle missions have helped us understand global warming, weather patterns, and the effects of weightlessness on the human body, aided in the understanding of disease, and exponentially increased our understanding of the universe. It would be impossible to quantify the knowledge we have gained from sending men and women into space. Space flight brings out the best in us. It challenges us to think big, to strive for greatness, and to work together to achieve the most important goals. There is no doubt in my mind that we should continue these missions and prepare the next generation of astronauts for the challenges that lay ahead. To be sure, there is great risk. However, if it weren't difficult, if it didn't promise to improve the quality of our lives and our understanding of the world, then it wouldn't be worth doing. Yesterday the families of the Columbia 7 issued a statement expressing that sentiment: ``Although we grieve deeply, as do the families of Apollo 1 and Challenger before us, the bold exploration of space must go on.'' This tragedy has touched each and every one of us. These selfless heroes were dedicated to a cause greater then themselves. They were passionate about space flight, passionate about their mission, and were committed to making life better for all of us. They will be missed, and they will never be forgotten.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Bingaman and I are reintroducing our bill to increase mandatory funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. Our legislation, the Children First Act would increase the mandatory funding stream of CCDBG by $11.2 billion over the next five years. Congress understands that working families need help paying for child care. Indeed, funding for CCDBG has grown significantly over the past several years. Yet despite these increases, funding still only reaches one in seven eligible children nationwide, leaving approximately 12.9 million eligible children without any assistance. Roughly 500,000 children are on waiting lists for help around the country and 21,000 children are on the waiting list for child care assistance in Massachusetts. The need for child care assistance in Massachusetts is tremendous. Currently, 60 percent of Massachusetts children under age six have mothers in the workforce, and 16.4 percent of Massachusetts children under age five live in poverty. Child care costs at an urban center for a four-year-old averages $8,121 per year and the costs for an infant averages $12,978. That's 223 percent more than the cost of public college tuition in Massachusetts! It's just shocking to me, Mr. President, that we expect families to bear the burden of such costly child care services, they simply cannot afford to do it and are forced either not to work or to leave their children in substandard, and many times even dangerous care. CCDBG is a critically important program to helping poor families afford child care, but we haven't done nearly enough to fill the existing child care gap. Even combining CCDBG and state child care funding in Massachusetts only reaches 13 percent of eligible children. Senator Bingaman and I led the effort to increase child care funding during the welfare reform debate last year and we will do so again this year. But today there is an even more dire need for child care funding than there was one year ago. State governments face a fiscal crisis of historical proportions and as a result have been forced to make severe cuts in social services. In fact child care subsidies for working parents have been scaled back in a number of states. Unfortunately it's likely that the federal government may compound those state cuts. The FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed last week by the Senate would cut CCDBG discretionary funds by approximately $60.9 million below FY 2002 levels. As a result, 38,000 fewer children would have access to child care assistance at a time when only one in seven eligible children receive services. Increased availability and the quality of child care helps achieve two important goals: First, it enables low-income parents on welfare and parents trying to stay off welfare to work and support their families. And second, it provides the early learning experiences that our children need to do well in school. Studies show that when child care is available, and when families get help paying for care, they are more likely to work. Children in high quality early care score higher on reading and math tests, are more likely to complete high school and go onto college, and are less likely to repeat a grade or get charged in juvenile court. Increased child care funding is an investment that we cannot afford NOT to make. I look forward to teaming up with Senator Bingaman in the Finance Committee during welfare reauthorization to increase CCDBG funding. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in the fight to provide all working families with safe, high-quality child care.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today my colleague Senator Bingaman and I are reintroducing our bill to increase mandatory funding for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG. Our legislation, the Children First Act would increase the mandatory funding stream of CCDBG by $11.2 billion over the next five years. Congress understands that working families need help paying for child care. Indeed, funding for CCDBG has grown significantly over the past several years. Yet despite these increases, funding still only reaches one in seven eligible children nationwide, leaving approximately 12.9 million eligible children without any assistance. Roughly 500,000 children are on waiting lists for help around the country and 21,000 children are on the waiting list for child care assistance in Massachusetts. The need for child care assistance in Massachusetts is tremendous. Currently, 60 percent of Massachusetts children under age six have mothers in the workforce, and 16.4 percent of Massachusetts children under age five live in poverty. Child care costs at an urban center for a four-year-old averages $8,121 per year and the costs for an infant averages $12,978. That's 223 percent more than the cost of public college tuition in Massachusetts! It's just shocking to me, Mr. President, that we expect families to bear the burden of such costly child care services, they simply cannot afford to do it and are forced either not to work or to leave their children in substandard, and many times even dangerous care. CCDBG is a critically important program to helping poor families afford child care, but we haven't done nearly enough to fill the existing child care gap. Even combining CCDBG and state child care funding in Massachusetts only reaches 13 percent of eligible children. Senator Bingaman and I led the effort to increase child care funding during the welfare reform debate last year and we will do so again this year. But today there is an even more dire need for child care funding than there was one year ago. State governments face a fiscal crisis of historical proportions and as a result have been forced to make severe cuts in social services. In fact child care subsidies for working parents have been scaled back in a number of states. Unfortunately it's likely that the federal government may compound those state cuts. The FY 2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill passed last week by the Senate would cut CCDBG discretionary funds by approximately $60.9 million below FY 2002 levels. As a result, 38,000 fewer children would have access to child care assistance at a time when only one in seven eligible children receive services. Increased availability and the quality of child care helps achieve two important goals: First, it enables low-income parents on welfare and parents trying to stay off welfare to work and support their families. And second, it provides the early learning experiences that our children need to do well in school. Studies show that when child care is available, and when families get help paying for care, they are more likely to work. Children in high quality early care score higher on reading and math tests, are more likely to complete high school and go onto college, and are less likely to repeat a grade or get charged in juvenile court. Increased child care funding is an investment that we cannot afford NOT to make. I look forward to teaming up with Senator Bingaman in the Finance Committee during welfare reauthorization to increase CCDBG funding. I urge all of my colleagues to join us in the fight to provide all working families with safe, high-quality child care.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski that would prevent Federal agencies from establishing, applying, or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs. The Mikulski amendment is identical to language that passed the House by a large, bipartisan margin and was included in the House fiscal year 2003 Treasury appropriations. I was very troubled by the Office of Management and Budget's directive to contract out 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. I was concerned because the OMB privatization quotas encourage agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs without public-private competition, which is unfair both to the affected employees as well as the taxpayers. In fact the OMB quotas force agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs that even Federal managers believe should continue to be performed by reliable Federal employees. Senator Mikulski's amendment is reasonable and fair. It allows for the contracting out of Federal employee jobs, but it prevents jobs from arbitrarily being privatized. Instead it will ensure that thoughtful criteria are established before Federal employee jobs are given away. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and about establishing a fair and reasonable process. I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.