John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it has been nearly 2 years since the presidential election left many Americans disenfranchised. In that time, this country has faced other tremendous crises, and perhaps the fervor with which people supported election reform two years ago has waned somewhat. But I believe that after all we have faced as a country, it is even more important that we preserve and improve the integrity of our democracy by ensuring that every eligible voter who wants to vote is able to vote. We can be thankful that we are past the days of poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory practices that kept voters away from the polls. But if there is even an inadvertent flaw in the design or administration of our voting systems that prevents Americans from having their votes counted, it is our utmost responsibility to ensure that we remedy the situation. There is simply no excuse for the most technologically savvy Nation in the world to be using voting equipment that is 30 years old. And it is disturbing, to say the least, that much of the oldest and least reliable equipment is found in the poorest counties across the country. Often, people of color make up the majority of the population in those counties. None of us should ever again be in the position of having to explain to urban, minority voters why a portion of their votes didn't get counted, while their white suburban neighbors, using better equipment, could rest assured that there were no voting irregularities in their precincts that would have caused their votes to be discarded. If we can't promise all of our citizens that their votes will count equally, then all of the past work this Nation has done to guarantee the right to vote to women, people of color and the poor will have been squandered. I have some serious concerns about a number of provisions in this legislation. But, because I believe we must use every tool available to us to uphold our citizens' right to vote, I have decided to support this conference report. On balance, I believe this bill will enable more people to exercise their fundamental right to vote by setting uniform, minimum standards for Federal elections, by providing voters with a chance to check for and correct ballot errors, and by providing for provisional ballots. These provisions, along with funding to replace outmoded voting systems, provide substantial improvements to the current system. Unfortunately, the compromise has significant shortcomings that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle insisted upon, ostensibly to reduce voter fraud, but which may make registration and voting difficult for first-time voters. The bill's requirement that first-time voters who register by mail provide specified forms of identification at the polls may disenfranchise a large number of voters, especially people with disabilities, racial and ethnic minorities, students, and the poor, who are far less likely to have photo identification than other voters. I am also concerned about new language that will invalidate an individual's registration if the person registering forgets to check off a box declaring that he or she is a U.S. citizen. Because voters already must affirm their citizenship when they sign the registration form, it is unnecessary to require that this box be checked for registration. Many elderly voters, visually impaired voters and voters with low levels of literacy may inadvertently fail to check the box and will, as a result, disproportionately be kept off the registration rolls. This legislation is supposed to be an effort to make voting easier for qualified voters, and this provision adds an unnecessary, complicating step. This bill also requires that, in order to register, voters provide a driver's license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number, and those numbers must be verified. This provision directly conflicts with the protections of the National Voter Registration Act, which prohibit the use of a driver's license or Social Security number to authenticate a voter's registration. Although I understand the desire to reduce instances of voter fraud, I believe these provisions are overly burdensome and unfair to many voters. This provision also has serious privacy implications. I hope that the problems with the conference report are fixed in the very near future, and I would strongly support efforts to rectify these disenfranchising provisions before the next election. However, as a whole, this bill solves more election-related problems than it creates. If it is properly implemented by state elections agencies, Congress's intent to improve the voting system will be satisfied. This is an important piece of legislation that must be enacted now if we are to have any improvements in place before the next national election.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, owning your own home is the foundation of the American dream. It encourages personal responsibility, provides economic security and gives families a greater stake in the development of their communities. Families who own their home are more civic-minded and more willing to help develop the communities where they live. Communities where homeownership rates are highest have lower crime rates, better schools and provide a better quality of life for families to raise their children. However, too many working families and minorities have not been able to share in the dream of homeownership due to the cost or lack of available housing. That is why I am introducing the Community Development Tax Credit Act, along with Senators Rick Santorum and Paul Sarbanes, which will create a new homeownership tax credit program, based on the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, to encourage the construction and substantial rehabilitation of homes for low and moderate-income families in economically distressed areas. I believe this legislation will increase the supply of affordable homes for sale in inner-cities, rural areas and low and moderate-income neighborhoods across the United States. The tax credit will bridge the gap that exists between the cost of developing affordable housing and the price at which these homes can be sold in many low-income neighborhoods by providing investors with a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of home construction or rehabilitation. Over the past decade, we have made substantial progress in increasing the homeownership rate in the United States. In 2000, the U.S. homeownership rate reached a record high of 67.1 percent with some 71 million U.S. Households owning their own home. However, too many working families in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and minorities across our Nation have not been able to share in this piece of the American Dream due to the high cost or lack of available housing. According to Census data for the second quarter of 2002, non-Hispanic whites have a 74.3 percent homeownership rate while minority groups have just a 53.7 percent homeownership rate. African-Americans have only a 48 percent homeownership rate and Hispanics have a mere 47.6 percent homeownership rate in the same study. These numbers are unacceptable. Many middle-income working families increasingly struggle to either find or afford a median-priced home in our Nation's cities. Over the past two generations, many families have moved out of cities and into the suburbs, which has had a negative effect on the development of housing in the inner-city. In 1999, the homeownership rate in the central-city areas was 50.4 percent, this is 23.2 percent lower than the suburban homeownership rate of 73.6 percent. Today, developers are unlikely to invest in any new housing development in inner-cities and rural areas that may not be sold for the cost of construction. This is especially true in low-income areas. There is a lack of affordable single-family housing in areas where a majority of residents are minority families. Properties will sit vacant and neighborhoods will remain undeveloped unless the gap between development costs and market prices can be filled. Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford housing. A person trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000, annually, just to rent a two-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment when they should have a chance to buy a home. The story of Benjamin and Rita Okafor show how working families in Massachusetts have great difficulty obtaining a decent home of their own. For many years, the Okafor's and their two young children were forced to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Benjamin Okafor, who worked full time as a cab driver in Boston, spent days and months looking for a bigger apartment for his family. However, the lack of affordable housing in the Boston area made it impossible for him to find appropriate housing for his family. When his wife Rita became pregnant with their third child, the Okafor's knew something had to change in their living situation. Luckily, Ben was accepted into the Habitat for Humanity program and worked for 300 sweat equity hours constructing a house. In August 2000, the Okafor family moved into a new home of their own in Dorchester. Ben says that this new home gives them the hope and stability they need. There are still too many working families living in substandard housing and many more families that desperately need assistance from Habitat for Humanity or from the Federal government to become a homeowner. Today, our Nation is facing an affordable rental housing crisis. Thousands of low-income families with children, the disabled, and the elderly are finding it difficult to obtain or afford privately owned affordable rental housing units. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the availability of affordable housing across the country, while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the cost of the housing that remains. Moving thousands of working families from apartments to homes each year will help ease our rental housing crisis and help many families now living in substandard housing increase their quality of life. By facing the mounting challenge of affordable housing we can dramatically assist in the economic development low- and moderate- income communities across our country. The production of new homes will create millions of jobs in the inner city and rural areas where unemployment has been for too long fact of life. The production of housing has always been considered a driver of economic growth in our economy. New housing production can turn many low income communities around and help end the spiral of unemployment and crime which plague too many of our inner cities today. For these reasons, we need a new tax incentive for developers to build affordable homes in distressed areas to allow working families to buy their first home at a reasonable rate. The Community Development Tax Credit Act, which I am introducing today, bridges the gap between development costs and market value to enable the development of new or refurbished homes in these areas to blossom. The tax credit would be available to developers or investors that build or substantially rehabilitate homes for sale to low- or moderate-income buyers in low-income areas. The credit would generate equity investment sufficient to cover the gap between the cost of development and the price at which the home can be sold to an eligible buyer The tax credit volume would be limited to $1.75 per capita for each State and allocated by the States themselves. Credits would be claimed over five years, starting when homes are sold. This legislation will result in approximately 50,000 homes built or refurbished annually, assuming about $40,000 per home. The maximum tax credit equals 50 percent of the cost of construction, substantial rehabilitation, and building acquisition. The eligible cost may not exceed the Federal Housing Administration single-family mortgage limits. The minimum rehabilitation cost is $25,000. Eligible building acquisition costs are limited to one-half of rehabilitation costs. States will allocate only the level of tax credits necessary for financial feasibility. Ten percent of the available credit will be set aside for nonprofit organizations. The eligible areas for the tax credit are defined as Census Tracts with median income below 80 percent of the area or state median. Rural areas that are currently eligible for USDA housing programs will be eligible for the tax credit. Indian tribal lands will be eligible for the tax credit. State-identified areas of chronic economic distress will be eligible for the tax credit, subject to disapproval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Those eligible to buy homes built or refurbished using the tax credit include: individuals with incomes up to 80 percent of the area or state median and up to 100 percent of area median income in low-income/high- poverty Census Tracts. Individual states will write plans for allocating the tax credits using the following selection criteria: contribution of the development to community stability and revitalization; community and local government support; need for homeownership development in the area; sponsor capability; and the long-term sustainability of the project as owner-occupied residences. Individual developers along with investors then can apply to the State to be awarded a tax credit for developing a property in a low- or moderate-income area. If chosen by the State, investors can start to claim the tax credits as the homes are sold to eligible buyers. They can continue to claim the tax credit over five years. Investors are not subject to recapture. If the home owner sold the residence within five years, a scale would determine the percentage of the gain would be recaptured by the Federal Government. In the first two years, 100 percent of the gain and 80, 70 and 60 percent in the third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively would be recaptured. This legislation is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Enterprise Foundation, Local Initiatives Support Coalition, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Association of Home Builders, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, National Association of Realtors, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Housing Conference, Habitat for Humanity International and others.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, owning your own home is the foundation of the American dream. It encourages personal responsibility, provides economic security and gives families a greater stake in the development of their communities. Families who own their home are more civic-minded and more willing to help develop the communities where they live. Communities where homeownership rates are highest have lower crime rates, better schools and provide a better quality of life for families to raise their children. However, too many working families and minorities have not been able to share in the dream of homeownership due to the cost or lack of available housing. That is why I am introducing the Community Development Tax Credit Act, along with Senators Rick Santorum and Paul Sarbanes, which will create a new homeownership tax credit program, based on the Low Income Housing Tax Credit program, to encourage the construction and substantial rehabilitation of homes for low and moderate-income families in economically distressed areas. I believe this legislation will increase the supply of affordable homes for sale in inner-cities, rural areas and low and moderate-income neighborhoods across the United States. The tax credit will bridge the gap that exists between the cost of developing affordable housing and the price at which these homes can be sold in many low-income neighborhoods by providing investors with a tax credit of up to 50 percent of the cost of home construction or rehabilitation. Over the past decade, we have made substantial progress in increasing the homeownership rate in the United States. In 2000, the U.S. homeownership rate reached a record high of 67.1 percent with some 71 million U.S. Households owning their own home. However, too many working families in low- and moderate-income neighborhoods and minorities across our Nation have not been able to share in this piece of the American Dream due to the high cost or lack of available housing. According to Census data for the second quarter of 2002, non-Hispanic whites have a 74.3 percent homeownership rate while minority groups have just a 53.7 percent homeownership rate. African-Americans have only a 48 percent homeownership rate and Hispanics have a mere 47.6 percent homeownership rate in the same study. These numbers are unacceptable. Many middle-income working families increasingly struggle to either find or afford a median-priced home in our Nation's cities. Over the past two generations, many families have moved out of cities and into the suburbs, which has had a negative effect on the development of housing in the inner-city. In 1999, the homeownership rate in the central-city areas was 50.4 percent, this is 23.2 percent lower than the suburban homeownership rate of 73.6 percent. Today, developers are unlikely to invest in any new housing development in inner-cities and rural areas that may not be sold for the cost of construction. This is especially true in low-income areas. There is a lack of affordable single-family housing in areas where a majority of residents are minority families. Properties will sit vacant and neighborhoods will remain undeveloped unless the gap between development costs and market prices can be filled. Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford housing. A person trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000, annually, just to rent a two-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment when they should have a chance to buy a home. The story of Benjamin and Rita Okafor show how working families in Massachusetts have great difficulty obtaining a decent home of their own. For many years, the Okafor's and their two young children were forced to live in a one-bedroom apartment. Benjamin Okafor, who worked full time as a cab driver in Boston, spent days and months looking for a bigger apartment for his family. However, the lack of affordable housing in the Boston area made it impossible for him to find appropriate housing for his family. When his wife Rita became pregnant with their third child, the Okafor's knew something had to change in their living situation. Luckily, Ben was accepted into the Habitat for Humanity program and worked for 300 sweat equity hours constructing a house. In August 2000, the Okafor family moved into a new home of their own in Dorchester. Ben says that this new home gives them the hope and stability they need. There are still too many working families living in substandard housing and many more families that desperately need assistance from Habitat for Humanity or from the Federal government to become a homeowner. Today, our Nation is facing an affordable rental housing crisis. Thousands of low-income families with children, the disabled, and the elderly are finding it difficult to obtain or afford privately owned affordable rental housing units. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the availability of affordable housing across the country, while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the cost of the housing that remains. Moving thousands of working families from apartments to homes each year will help ease our rental housing crisis and help many families now living in substandard housing increase their quality of life. By facing the mounting challenge of affordable housing we can dramatically assist in the economic development low- and moderate- income communities across our country. The production of new homes will create millions of jobs in the inner city and rural areas where unemployment has been for too long fact of life. The production of housing has always been considered a driver of economic growth in our economy. New housing production can turn many low income communities around and help end the spiral of unemployment and crime which plague too many of our inner cities today. For these reasons, we need a new tax incentive for developers to build affordable homes in distressed areas to allow working families to buy their first home at a reasonable rate. The Community Development Tax Credit Act, which I am introducing today, bridges the gap between development costs and market value to enable the development of new or refurbished homes in these areas to blossom. The tax credit would be available to developers or investors that build or substantially rehabilitate homes for sale to low- or moderate-income buyers in low-income areas. The credit would generate equity investment sufficient to cover the gap between the cost of development and the price at which the home can be sold to an eligible buyer The tax credit volume would be limited to $1.75 per capita for each State and allocated by the States themselves. Credits would be claimed over five years, starting when homes are sold. This legislation will result in approximately 50,000 homes built or refurbished annually, assuming about $40,000 per home. The maximum tax credit equals 50 percent of the cost of construction, substantial rehabilitation, and building acquisition. The eligible cost may not exceed the Federal Housing Administration single-family mortgage limits. The minimum rehabilitation cost is $25,000. Eligible building acquisition costs are limited to one-half of rehabilitation costs. States will allocate only the level of tax credits necessary for financial feasibility. Ten percent of the available credit will be set aside for nonprofit organizations. The eligible areas for the tax credit are defined as Census Tracts with median income below 80 percent of the area or state median. Rural areas that are currently eligible for USDA housing programs will be eligible for the tax credit. Indian tribal lands will be eligible for the tax credit. State-identified areas of chronic economic distress will be eligible for the tax credit, subject to disapproval by the Department of Housing and Urban Development Those eligible to buy homes built or refurbished using the tax credit include: individuals with incomes up to 80 percent of the area or state median and up to 100 percent of area median income in low-income/high- poverty Census Tracts. Individual states will write plans for allocating the tax credits using the following selection criteria: contribution of the development to community stability and revitalization; community and local government support; need for homeownership development in the area; sponsor capability; and the long-term sustainability of the project as owner-occupied residences. Individual developers along with investors then can apply to the State to be awarded a tax credit for developing a property in a low- or moderate-income area. If chosen by the State, investors can start to claim the tax credits as the homes are sold to eligible buyers. They can continue to claim the tax credit over five years. Investors are not subject to recapture. If the home owner sold the residence within five years, a scale would determine the percentage of the gain would be recaptured by the Federal Government. In the first two years, 100 percent of the gain and 80, 70 and 60 percent in the third, fourth, and fifth years, respectively would be recaptured. This legislation is supported by the U.S. Conference of Mayors, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, the Enterprise Foundation, Local Initiatives Support Coalition, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Association of Home Builders, National Low Income Housing Coalition, National Association of Local Housing Finance Agencies, National Association of Realtors, National Council of La Raza, National Hispanic Housing Conference, Habitat for Humanity International and others.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Arizona for his introduction and for his generous comments about the role that Senator Hagel and I have played. My colleague, Senator Hagel, and I share seats on the Foreign Relations Committee. We have both followed this issue for a long period of time. Obviously, with respect to an issue that might take Americans to war, we deserve time, and there is no more important debate to be had on the floor of the Senate. It is in the greatest traditions of this institution, and I am proud to take part in that debate now. This is a debate that should be conducted without regard to parties, to politics, to labels. It is a debate that has to come from the gut of each and every Member, and I am confident that it does. I know for Senator Hagel, Senator McCain, and myself, when we pick up the newspapers and read about the residuals of the Vietnam war, there is a particular sensitivity because I do not think any of us feel a residual with respect to the choices we are making now. I know for myself back in that period of time, even as I protested the war, I wrote that if my Nation was again threatened and Americans made the decision we needed to defend ourselves, I would be among the first to put on a uniform again and go and do that. We are facing a very different world today than we have ever faced before. September 11 changed a lot, but other things have changed: Globalization, technology, a smaller planet, the difficulties of radical fundamentalism, the crosscurrents of religion and politics. We are living in an age where the dangers are different and they require a different response, different thinking, and different approaches than we have applied in the past. Most importantly, it is a time when international institutions must rise to the occasion and seek new authority and a new measure of respect. In approaching the question of this resolution, I wish the timing were different. I wish for the sake of the country we were not here now at this moment. There are legitimate questions about that timing. But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out. With respect to Saddam Hussein and the threat he presents, we must ask ourselves a simple question: Why? Why is Saddam Hussein pursuing weapons that most nations have agreed to limit or give up? Why is Saddam Hussein guilty of breaking his own cease-fire agreement with the international community? Why is Saddam Hussein attempting to develop nuclear weapons when most nations don't even try, and responsible nations that have them attempt to limit their potential for disaster? Why did Saddam Hussein threaten and provoke? Why does he develop missiles that exceed allowable limits? Why did Saddam Hussein lie and deceive the inspection teams previously? Why did Saddam Hussein not account for all of the weapons of mass destruction which UNSCOM identified? Why is he seeking to develop unmanned airborne vehicles for delivery of biological agents? Does he do all of these things because he wants to live by international standards of behavior? Because he respects international law? Because he is a nice guy underneath it all and the world should trust him? It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations. All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel. I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: . . . unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless under international supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems . . . [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon- usable material. Saddam Hussein signed that agreement. Saddam Hussein is in office today because of that agreement. It is the only reason he survived in 1991. In 1991, the world collectively made a judgment that this man should not have weapons of mass destruction. And we are here today in the year 2002 with an uninspected 4-year interval during which time we know through intelligence he not only has kept them, but he continues to grow them. I believe the record of Saddam Hussein's ruthless, reckless breach of international values and standards of behavior which is at the core of the cease-fire agreement, with no reach, no stretch, is cause enough for the world community to hold him accountable by use of force, if necessary. The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation. The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to ``take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program.'' That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response. Later in the year, Congress enacted legislation declaring Iraq in material, unacceptable breach of its disarmament obligations and urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq into compliance. In fact, had we done so, President Bush could well have taken his office, backed by our sense of urgency about holding Saddam Hussein accountable and, with an international United Nations, backed a multilateral stamp of approval record on a clear demand for the disarmament of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. We could have had that and we would not be here debating this today. But the administration missed an opportunity 2 years ago and particularly a year ago after September 11. They regrettably, and even clumsily, complicated their own case. The events of September 11 created new understanding of the terrorist threat and the degree to which every nation is vulnerable. That understanding enabled the administration to form a broad and impressive coalition against terrorism. Had the administration tried then to capitalize on this unity of spirit to build a coalition to disarm Iraq, we would not be here in the pressing days before an election, late in this year, debating this now. The administration's decision to engage on this issue now, rather than a year ago or earlier, and the manner in which it has engaged, has politicized and complicated the national debate and raised questions about the credibility of their case. By beginning its public discourse with talk of invasion and regime change, the administration raised doubts about their bona fides on the most legitimate justification for war--that in the post-September 11 world the unrestrained threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein is unacceptable, and his refusal to allow U.N. inspectors to return was in blatant violation of the 1991 cease-fire agreement that left him in power. By casting about in an unfocused, undisciplined, overly public, internal debate for a rationale for war, the administration complicated their case, confused the American public, and compromised America's credibility in the eyes of the world community. By engaging in hasty war talk rather than focusing on the central issue of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the administration placed doubts in the minds of potential allies, particularly in the Middle East, where managing the Arab street is difficult at best. Against this disarray, it is not surprising that tough questions began to be asked and critics began to emerge. Indeed over the course of the last 6 weeks some of the strongest and most thoughtful questioning of our Nation's Iraq policy has come from what some observers would say are unlikely sources: Senators like Chuck Hagel and Dick Lugar, former Bush Administration national security experts including Brent Scowcroft and James Baker, and distinguished military voices including General Shalikashvili. They are asking the tough questions which must be answered before--and not after--you commit a nation to a course that may well lead to war. They know from their years of experience, whether on the battlefield as soldiers, in the Senate, or at the highest levels of public diplomacy, that you build the consent of the American people to sustain military confrontation by asking questions, not avoiding them. Criticism and questions do not reflect a lack of patriotism--they demonstrate the strength and core values of our American democracy. It is love of country, and it is defined by defense of those policies that protect and defend our country. Writing in the New York Times in early September, I argued that the American people would never accept the legitimacy of this war or give their consent to it unless the administration first presented detailed evidence of the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and proved that it had exhausted all other options to protect our national security. I laid out a series of steps that the administration must take for the legitimacy of our cause and our ultimate success in Iraq-- seek the advice and approval of Congress after laying out the evidence and making the case, and work with our allies to seek full enforcement of the existing cease-fire agreement while simultaneously offering Iraq a clear ultimatum: accept rigorous inspections without negotiation or compromise and without condition. Those of us who have offered questions and criticisms--and there are many in this body and beyond--can take heart in the fact that those questions and those criticisms have had an impact on the debate. They have changed how we may or may not deal with Iraq. The Bush administration began talking about Iraq by suggesting that congressional consultation and authorization for the use of force were not needed. Now they are consulting with Congress and seeking our authorization. The administration began this process walking down a path of unilateralism. Today they acknowledge that while we reserve the right to act alone, it is better to act with allies. The administration which once seemed entirely disengaged from the United Nations ultimately went to the United Nations and began building international consensus to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. The administration began this process suggesting that the United States might well go to war over Saddam Hussein's failure to return Kuwaiti property. Last week the Secretary of State and on Monday night the President made clear we would go to war only to disarm Iraq. The administration began discussion of Iraq by almost belittling the importance of arms inspections. Today the administration has refocused their aim and made clear we are not in an arbitrary conflict with one of the world's many dictators, but a conflict with a dictator whom the international community left in power only because he agreed not to pursue weapons of mass destruction. That is why arms inspections--and I believe ultimately Saddam's unwillingness to submit to fail-safe inspections--is absolutely critical in building international support for our case to the world. That is the way in which you make it clear to the world that we are contemplating war not for war's sake, and not to accomplish goals that don't meet international standards or muster with respect to national security, but because weapons inspections may be the ultimate enforcement mechanism, and that may be the way in which we ultimately protect ourselves. I am pleased that the Bush administration has recognized the wisdom of shifting its approach on Iraq. That shift has made it possible, in my judgment, for the Senate to move forward with greater unity, having asked and begun to answer the questions that best defend our troops and protect our national security. The Senate can now make a determination about this resolution and, in this historic vote, help put our country and the world on a course to begin to answer one fundamental question-- not whether to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, but how. I have said publicly for years that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein pose a real and grave threat to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. Saddam Hussein's record bears this out. I have talked about that record. Iraq never fully accounted for the major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of the pre-Gulf war weapons of mass destruction program, nor did the Iraq regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons and production infrastructure. He has continually failed to meet the obligations imposed by the international community on Iraq at the end of the Persian Gulf the Iraqi regime provide credible proof war to declare and destroy its weapons of mass destruction and delivery systems and to forego the development of nuclear weapons. during the 7 years of weapons inspections, the Iraqi regime repeatedly frustrated the work of the UNSCOM--Special Commission--inspectors, culminating in 1998 in their ouster. Even during the period of inspections, Iraq never fully accounted for major gaps and inconsistencies in declarations provided to the inspectors of its pre-gulf war WMD programs, nor did the Iraqi regime provide credible proof that it had completely destroyed its weapons stockpiles and production infrastructure. It is clear that in the 4 years since the UNSCOM inspectors were forced out, Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution. Although Iraq's chemical weapons capability was reduced during the UNSCOM inspections, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort over the last 4 years. Evidence suggests that it has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard gas, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX. Intelligence reports show that Iraq has invested more heavily in its biological weapons programs over the 4 years, with the result that all key aspects of this program--R&D, production and weaponization--are active. Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the gulf war. Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery on a range of vehicles such as bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives which could bring them to the United States homeland. Since inspectors left, the Iraqi regime has energized its missile program, probably now consisting of a few dozen Scud-type missiles with ranges of 650 to 900 kilometers that could hit Israel, Saudi Arabia and other U.S. allies in the region. In addition, Iraq is developing unmanned aerial vehicles UAVs, capable of delivering chemical and biological warfare agents, which could threaten Iraq's neighbors as well as American forces in the Persian Gulf. Prior to the gulf war, Iraq had an advance nuclear weapons development program. Although UNSCOM and IAEA International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors learned much about Iraq's efforts in this area, Iraq has failed to provide complete information on all aspects of its program. Iraq has maintained its nuclear scientists and technicians as well as sufficient dual-use manufacturing capability to support a reconstituted nuclear weapons program. Iraqi defectors who once worked for Iraq's nuclear weapons establishment have reportedly told American officials that acquiring nuclear weapons is a top priority for Saddam Hussein's regime. According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons. The more difficult question to answer is when Iraq could actually achieve this goal. That depends on is its ability to acquire weapons-grade fissile material. If Iraq could acquire this material from abroad, the CIA estimates that it could have a nuclear weapon within 1 year. Absent a foreign supplier, it might be longer. There is no question that Saddam Hussein represents a threat. I have heard even my colleagues who oppose the President's resolution say we have to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. They also say we have to force the inspections. And to force the inspections, you have to be prepared to use force. So the issue is not over the question of whether or not the threat is real, or whether or not people agree there is a threat. It is over what means we will take, and when, in order to try to eliminate it. The reason for going to war, if we must fight, is not because Saddam Hussein has failed to deliver gulf war prisoners or Kuwaiti property. As much as we decry the way he has treated his people, regime change alone is not a sufficient reason for going to war, as desirable as it is to change the regime. Regime change has been an American policy under the Clinton administration, and it is the current policy. I support the policy. But regime change in and of itself is not sufficient justification for going to war--particularly unilaterally--unless regime change is the only way to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction pursuant to the United Nations resolution. As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter. In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? Who can say that this master of miscalculation will not develop a weapon of mass destruction even greater--a nuclear weapon--then reinvade Kuwait, push the Kurds out, attack Israel, any number of scenarios to try to further his ambitions to be the pan-Arab leader or simply to confront in the region, and once again miscalculate the response, to believe he is stronger because he has those weapons? And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade? How do we leave that to chance? That is why the enforcement mechanism through the United Nations and the reality of the potential of the use of force is so critical to achieve the protection of long-term interests, not just of the United States but of the world, to understand that the dynamic has changed, that we are living in a different status today, that we cannot sit by and be as complacent or even negligent about weapons of mass destruction and proliferation as we have been in the past. The Iraqi regime's record over the decade leaves little doubt that Saddam Hussein wants to retain his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and, obviously, as we have said, grow it. These weapons represent an unacceptable threat. I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq, and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take. I am pleased that our pressure, and the questions we have asked, and the criticisms that have been raised publicly, the debate in our democracy has pushed this administration to adopt important changes, both in language as well as in the promises that they make. The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change. In recent days, the administration has gone further. They are defining what ``relevant'' U.N. Security Council resolutions mean. When Secretary Powell testified before our committee, the Foreign Relations Committee, on September 26, he was asked what specific U.N. Security Council resolutions the United States would go to war to enforce. His response was clear: the resolutions dealing with weapons of mass destruction and the disarmament of Iraq. In fact, when asked about compliance with other U.N. resolutions which do not deal with weapons of mass destruction, the Secretary said: The President has not linked authority to go to war to any of those elements. When asked why the resolution sent by the President to Congress requested authority to enforce all the resolutions with which Iraq had not complied, the Secretary told the committee: That's the way the resolution is currently worded, but we all know, I think, that the major problem, the offense, what the President is focused on and the danger to us and to the world are the weapons of mass destruction. In his speech on Monday night, President Bush confirmed what Secretary Powell told the committee. In the clearest presentation to date, the President laid out a strong, comprehensive, and compelling argument why Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs are a threat to the United States and the international community. The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq's failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The Biden-Lugar resolution also acknowledges the importance of the President's efforts at the United Nations. It would require the President, before exercising the authority granted in the resolution, to send a determination to Congress that the United States tried to seek a new Security Council resolution or that the threat posed by Iraq's WMD is so great he must act absent a new resolution--a power, incidentally, that the President of the United States always has. I believe this approach would have provided greater clarity to the American people about the reason for going to war and the specific grant of authority. I think it would have been a better way to do this. But it does not change the bottom line of what we are voting for. The administration, unwisely, in my view, rejected the Biden-Lugar approach. But, perhaps as a nod to the sponsors, it did agree to a determination requirement on the status of its efforts at the United Nations. That is now embodied in the White House text. The President has challenged the United Nations, as he should, and as all of us in the Senate should, to enforce its own resolutions vis-a- vis Iraq. And his administration is now working aggressively with the Perm 5 members on the Security Council to reach a consensus. As he told the American people Monday night: America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. And that is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements. Because of my concerns, and because of the need to understand, with clarity, what this resolution meant, I traveled to New York a week ago. I met with members of the Security Council and came away with a conviction that they will indeed move to enforce, that they understand the need to enforce, if Saddam Hussein does not fulfill his obligation to disarm. And I believe they made it clear that if the United States operates through the U.N., and through the Security Council, they--all of them-- will also bear responsibility for the aftermath of rebuilding Iraq and for the joint efforts to do what we need to do as a consequence of that enforcement. I talked to Secretary General Kofi Annan at the end of last week and again felt a reiteration of the seriousness with which the United Nations takes this and that they will respond. If the President arbitrarily walks away from this course of action-- without good cause or reason--the legitimacy of any subsequent action by the United States against Iraq will be challenged by the American people and the international community. And I would vigorously oppose the President doing so. When I vote to give the President of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security and that of our allies in the Persian Gulf region. I will vote yes because I believe it is the best way to hold Saddam Hussein accountable. And the administration, I believe, is now committed to a recognition that war must be the last option to address this threat, not the first, and that we must act in concert with allies around the globe to make the world's case against Saddam Hussein. As the President made clear earlier this week, ``Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.'' It means ``America speaks with one voice.'' Let me be clear, the vote I will give to the President is for one reason and one reason only: To disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, if we cannot accomplish that objective through new, tough weapons inspections in joint concert with our allies. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out. If we do wind up going to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so with others in the international community, unless there is a showing of a grave, imminent--and I emphasize ``imminent''--threat to this country which requires the President to respond in a way that protects our immediate national security needs. Prime Minister Tony Blair has recognized a similar need to distinguish how we approach this. He has said that he believes we should move in concert with allies, and he has promised his own party that he will not do so otherwise. The administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do. And it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances. In voting to grant the President the authority, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses or may pose some kind of potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively, if it faces an imminent and grave threat, for its self-defense under the standards of law. The threat we face today with Iraq does not meet that test yet. I emphasize ``yet.'' Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he might use these weapons one day if not disarmed. But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack. The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that he disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption. Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite. This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and Iraq only, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq and enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions. The definition of purpose circumscribes the authority given to the President to the use of force to disarm Iraq because only Iraq's weapons of mass destruction meet the two criteria laid out in this resolution. Congressional action on this resolution is not the end of our national debate on how best to disarm Iraq. Nor does it mean we have exhausted all of our peaceful options to achieve this goal. There is much more to be done. The administration must continue its efforts to build support at the United Nations for a new, unfettered, unconditional weapons inspection regime. If we can eliminate the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction through inspections, whenever, wherever, and however we want them, including in palaces--and I am highly skeptical, given the full record, given their past practices, that we can necessarily achieve that--then we have an obligation to try that as the first course of action before we expend American lives in any further effort. American success in the Persian Gulf war was enhanced by the creation of an international coalition. Our coalition partners picked up the overwhelming burden of the cost of that war. It is imperative that the administration continue to work to multilateralize the current effort against Iraq. If the administration's initiatives at the United Nations are real and sincere, other nations are more likely to invest, to stand behind our efforts to force Iraq to disarm, be it through a new, rigorous, no-nonsense program of inspection, or if necessary, through the use of force. That is the best way to proceed. The United States, without question, has the military power to enter this conflict unilaterally. But we do need friends. We need logistical support such as bases, command and control centers, overflight rights from allies in the region. And most importantly, we need to be able to successfully wage the war on terror simultaneously. That war on terror depends more than anything else on the sharing of intelligence. That sharing of intelligence depends more than anything else on the cooperation of countries in the region. If we disrupt that, we could disrupt the possibilities of the capacity of that war to be most effectively waged. I believe the support from the region will come only if they are convinced of the credibility of our arguments and the legitimacy of our mission. The United Nations never has veto power over any measure the United States needs to take to protect our national security. But it is in our interest to try to act with our allies, if at all possible. And that should be because the burden of eliminating the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction should not be ours alone. It should not be the American people's alone. If in the end these efforts fail, and if in the end we are at war, we will have an obligation, ultimately, to the Iraqi people with whom we are not at war. This is a war against a regime, mostly one man. So other nations in the region and all of us will need to help create an Iraq that is a place and a force for stability and openness in the region. That effort is going to be long term, costly, and not without difficulty, given Iraq's ethnic and religious divisions and history of domestic turbulence. In Afghanistan, the administration has given more lipservice than resources to the rebuilding effort. We cannot allow that to happen in Iraq, and we must be prepared to stay the course over however many years it takes to do it right. The challenge is great: An administration which made nation building a dirty word needs to develop a comprehensive, Marshall-type plan, if it will meet the challenge. The President needs to give the American people a fairer and fuller, clearer understanding of the magnitude and long-term financial cost of that effort. The international community's support will be critical because we will not be able to rebuild Iraq singlehandedly. We will lack the credibility and the expertise and the capacity. It is clear the Senate is about to give the President the authority he has requested sometime in the next days. Whether the President will have to use that authority depends ultimately on Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein has a choice: He can continue to defy the international community, or he can fulfill his longstanding obligations to disarm. He is the person who has brought the world to this brink of confrontation. He is the dictator who can end the stalemate simply by following the terms of the agreement which left him in power. By standing with the President, Congress would demonstrate our Nation is united in its determination to take away that arsenal, and we are affirming the President's right and responsibility to keep the American people safe. One of the lessons I learned from fighting in a very different war, at a different time, is we need the consent of the American people for our mission to be legitimate and sustainable. I do know what it means, as does Senator Hagel, to fight in a war where that consent is lost, where allies are in short supply, where conditions are hostile, and the mission is ill-defined. That is why I believe so strongly before one American soldier steps foot on Iraqi soil, the American people must understand completely its urgency. They need to know we put our country in the position of ultimate strength and that we have no options, short of war, to eliminate a threat we could not tolerate. I believe the work we have begun in this Senate, by offering questions, and not blind acquiescence, has helped put our Nation on a responsible course. It has succeeded, certainly, in putting Saddam Hussein on notice that he will be held accountable; but it also has put the administration on notice we will hold them accountable for the means by which we do this. It is through constant questioning we will stay the course, and that is a course that will ultimately defend our troops and protect our national security. President Kennedy faced a similar difficult challenge in the days of the Cuban missile crisis. He decided not to proceed, I might add, preemptively. He decided to show the evidence and proceeded through the international institutions. He said at the time: The path we have chosen is full of hazards, as all paths are . . . The cost of freedom is always high, but Americans have always paid it. And one path we shall never choose, and that is the path of surrender, or submission. So I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations--an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create--to simply be ignored by this dictator. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be recognized, after which I be recognized following the Senator from Nebraska, and I think the Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, point of inquiry?

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, I would simply request that after the Senator from North Carolina has spoken, I be recognized.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from North Carolina, I be recognized, following the----

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask if the Senator from Texas will allow me to speak about 5 minutes before he begins.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator from Texas yield?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay respects to a man who has served his country for the past 78 years. In the year 1924, at the age of 21, Strom Thurmond was commissioned a 2nd Lieutenant in the U.S. Army Reserve. Twenty years later, Strom fought valiantly during World War II and amazingly, at the age of 43, he was part of the first wave of American soldiers who landed in Normandy during D-day, parachuting behind enemy lines with the 82nd Airborne Division. For his bravery and outstanding service in combat, Strom Thurmond was awarded 18 service decorations, awards and medals. In addition to his Bronze Star for Valor, he received the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, the Purple Heart. For his merit and heroism during the D-day invasion and subsequent freeing of Belgium and France, he was awarded both the Belgian Order of the Crown and the French Croix de Guerre from the Belgian and French Governments, respectively. After returning from the war, Strom Thurmond began an unprecedented career in the Senate which has been marked by a dedication to upholding the honor and dignity of the United States Military and America's heroic veterans helping to ensure that every veteran has a voice in the Halls of Congress and the opportunity and protection commensurate with the dignity and honor with which they served. In 1959, 36 years after he had been commissioned, Strom Thurmond retired from the United States Army Reserves a major general of the U.S. Reserves, ending an amazing career that spanned two wars and countless acts of personal bravery and leadership. In the Senate he has brought his many years of experience to many debates and, for the last 30 years, to the Veterans Affairs Committee where his personal commitment to veterans issues has been heralded by all. As a veteran, I have great respect for Senator Thurmond's active role on the Veterans Affairs Committee and his contributions to make certain in words and deeds that our veterans and their families receive the best possible care and that the U.S. Government honors the promise it makes to each soldier who wears the uniform of our country. When Strom Thurmond retires after this year, the Senate will lose a man who has seen the arc of the 20th century with his very eyes. From fighting in some of the greatest battles in world history to bearing witness to the Great Depression and the Great Society, Strom Thurmond has seen decades pass in which America has fought in war and prospered in peace--decades in which America emerged from isolation to lead the world to greater freedom and liberty for all--decades in which American made certain the promises of our forebears and their quest for a more equal society.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, thank you very much. And I thank the distinguished assistant majority leader.

Mr. KERRY. Not more.

Mr. KERRY. A few minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my hope is, again, that Senators on the other side, who are also cosponsors of this bill, will assist us in trying to proceed forward because there is no rationale for delay--I underscore--there was an e-mail circulated by somebody with some gargantuan unofficial estimate of cost that has no relationship to any legitimate estimate that has been made here. The CBO estimate clearly demonstrates that this measure is sensible, with a cost of about $5 million a year. What is happening is we are seeing a little bit of partisanship-- maybe we are seeing a lot of it these last days here in the Senate. I hope we can overcome this in the next days. I look forward to working with Senator Bond and others to see if we can proceed forward on this legislation. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am going to be asking unanimous consent to proceed forward on the bill, but I am not going to do that until someone is here from the other side. And I know they are going to object, or most likely will object. But let me bring to the attention of my colleagues in the Senate a situation that is not dissimilar to a situation we faced some months ago in trying to provide emergency assistance, under the Small Business Administration, to those who had been affected by the events of September 11 of last year. We had a lot of small businesses in the country that were hurting that had collateral damage, if you will, as a consequence of those events. Many, many small businesses were dependent on the economy as it flows through all sectors. So whether it was a small drycleaner that was affected because they were not doing as much business because hotels were not doing as much business or a limousine company or a taxi company, there are many people who were affected tangentially because of the dropoff in air travel, and so forth. It took us a number of months, almost six, unfortunately, in the Senate to respond in a way that many of us thought was both appropriate and adequate. And, again, we are sort of running into a strange kind of unexplained resistance by the administration to something that makes common sense, is very inexpensive but also very necessary for a lot of small entrepreneurs in our country. I am specifically referring to the Small Business Drought Relief Act. In more than 30 States in our country, we have a declared drought emergency. And the drought is as significant in some places as it was during the great Dust Bowl years of the Depression in the United States. Drought hurts more than farmers, more than ranchers. The purpose of this bill is to try to provide some emergency assistance, in an affordable and sensible way, for those small businesses that are not in agricultural-related fields but desperately cannot get help, and need it, and cannot get it because the SBA does not apply the law uniformly for all victims of drought. The SBA makes disaster loans to small businesses related to agriculture that are hurt by drought, but they are turning away small businesses that are in industries unrelated to agriculture, and claiming that those businesses are not entitled to it because drought does not fit the definition of disaster. That is just wrong. It is wrong because the law does not restrict them from making loans to those small businesses. It is wrong because that is not the intent of the Congress to turn away those small businesses, and they should be following the law and following the intent of Congress. I might add that the SBA has in effect right now disaster declarations in 30 States that I just talked about. For instance, in South Carolina, the entire State has been declared a disaster by the SBA, but the administration is not helping all of the drought victims in South Carolina that are looking for help. Let me share with you the declaration of drought itself. It addresses this question of intent. Small businesses located in all 46 counties may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. Let me read to you from the declaration: Small businesses located in all 46 counties may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. These are working capital loans to help the business continue to meet its obligations until the business returns to normal conditions. . . . Only small, non-farm agriculture dependent and small agricultural cooperatives are eligible to apply for assistance. Nurseries are also eligible for economic injury caused by drought conditions. What do I mean by other businesses that may be affected by drought? In South Carolina, conditions are so bad that small businesses dependent on lake and river tourism have seen their revenues drop anywhere from 17 to 80 percent. So you have victims of the drought that range from fish and tackle shops to rafting businesses, from restaurants to motels, from marinas to gas stations. Their livelihood is no less impacted and no less important than those who have been deemed to fit under only the agricultural definition. Thousands of small businesses make their living in tourism, recreation industries, not just in South Carolina but in many other parts of the country, including my State of Massachusetts, in Texas, Michigan, Delaware, and elsewhere. In fact, for a lot of States around the Great Lakes Basin, sport fishing, as reported by the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, brings into the region some $4 billion a year. There are many industries that are dependent on water that are affected by drought, and they ought to be eligible for this help. Is this opening Pandora's box with respect to a flow of lending that we cannot afford? The answer is definitively no. The SBA already has the authority, but its lawyers have decided not to help these industries based on their own interpretation of a definition, despite the fact that Congress believes otherwise. That defies both common sense and fairness. Small businesses with everything on the line desperately need this, especially at a time when capital is a lot tighter for working capital purposes, where the lending is significantly tighter from the banks and from other traditional credit sources. Our bill, the drought relief bill, does not expand the existing program. It simply clarifies existing authority. That is a matter of common sense. In terms of cost, the Congressional Budget Office estimates a cost of about $5 million annually. What we have here is a resistance by somebody in the U.S. Senate to allowing this to go forward based on about a $5 million annual estimate by CBO. This chart of CBO's estimate is a tally of the estimated spending under the SBA's disaster loan program which shows the differential with this particular bill. This bill is bipartisan. The principal cosponsors are Senator Bond and Senator Hollings. All the members of our committee--the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship--voted in favor of this bill. There are 25 cosponsors, Democrats and Republicans; 17 Governors have written us to express their support of this legislation in hopes we will pass it, including 15 of the Southern Governors' Association. I ask unanimous consent that letter, and others, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to consideration of Calendar No. 535, S. 2734; and that the Bond amendment, which is at the desk, be considered and agreed to; the committee-reported substitute amendment, as amended, be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating thereto be printed in the Record at the appropriate place as if read, without further intervening business or debate.

Mr. KERRY. This is a letter from the Southern Governors' Association, with 15 southern Governors signing and asking us to pass this assistance. They have sent letters to Members of Congress asking them to support and pass the bill. Finally, we are not talking about grants. We are talking about loans. These are going to be repaid. The default record of the SBA over the last 10 years is really quite extraordinary on the positive side of the ledger. The question is whether we are going to look to small businesses that are equally hard working as anyone else in the country, who, like farmers, are suffering the economic consequences of a drought that is beyond their control. I thank Senator Bond for working with me to try to address this problem. I thank Senator Hollings, particularly, the chairman of the Commerce Committee, for introducing the bill with me. I am particularly grateful to the small business owners who have brought this issue to our attention and who hope we can break out of any partisan resistance within the Senate in order to do what is right. I hope my colleagues will permit us to proceed forward on this legislation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have learned much in the last year about how to measure the strength of America, a Nation built on the willingness of our citizens to give of their time and their energy, knowing that in the end our freedom and strength as individuals is connected to the freedom and strength of our Nation, and when one falters the other suffers in turn. Mothers and fathers have passed along to every successive generation pride in sacrifice and a commitment to our shared values that have become the touchstone of America's strength, grounded in the simple words of DeTocqueville: ``America is great because Americans are good.'' Arthur Blaustein's book on American volunteerism proves that the spirit of our forebears, that spirit that carried us through the tumultuous early days, a Civil War, a Depression, two World Wars, and the upheaval at home and overseas of the sixties, is alive and well today. From commitments to civil rights and civic bodies to military service and community volunteering, our Nation is a nation committed to strengthening and improving the world around us. And every time Americans have sought to strengthen our freedom and values, we have found individuals willing to volunteer their time and lead by their example, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Clara Barton, Rachel Carson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and many more. And today, youngsters in middle school and high school have more opportunities than ever to volunteer in their local communities, in nursing homes, tutoring their peers, or helping protect our environment; and are doing so in increasing numbers. Arthur Blaustein, a long-time volunteer himself and an active force in American volunteer efforts, has written a book that appears at a crucial moment in our Nation's history, a moment when communal and civic engagement are more important then ever. His book honors the high ideals and values that are found in these organizations that have proven so successful in strengthening the ties of our communities and our country. His message is an important one: if America is to remain strong and committed to our values, civic and community engagement is a necessity. I applaud his proposals and hope many more, both young and old, will volunteer their time and energy to keep America strong. Part I, The Challenge of Community Service: The traditions of community service and citizen participation have been at the heart of American civic culture since before the nation was founded; whether through town hall meetings, the local school board, a political party, a hospital auxiliary, or one of our innumerable other national and local organizations, Americans have felt and acted on the need to give something back to their communities. Yet since the events of September 11, this need has become more urgent, as Americans on the whole have become more introspective and more patriotic. This patriotism has taken many different forms, but one thing is clear: our concern for our country, our communities, our families, and our neighbors has become more acute, and our need to contribute more urgent. With firefighters, police officers, and rescue teams leading the way, ordinary citizens, ironworkers, teachers, public health clinicians, professionals, businesspeople, and schoolchildren, either volunteered to go to Ground Zero or offered their support from a distance. Everything from blankets to blood, peanut butter to poetry arrived in New York City by the bale, the gallon, the barrel, and the ream. Americans didn't wait until January 1, 2002, to make resolutions; in mid-September, many resolved to be more caring and giving. Make a Difference is here to help harness this outpouring of compassion, energy, and patriotism in creative and useful ways. If you've decided to make a difference because of the events of September 11, or if volunteering is one of those things you've been meaning to do all along but just haven't gotten around to, or if you're just curious about what's out there, this book can help you take the next step. It was designed to help you decide that you can make a contribution to the well-being of your community. It will help to answer the why, the how, the what, and the when. Why is community service important? How can you get in touch with a group that promotes the values and goals that you believe in? What specific volunteer activities match up with your skills and experiences? When is a good time to volunteer? Each of the organizations included in the book has been selected because of its commitment to educational, social, economic, environmental, and community development goals. Some have been in existence for many decades and others are fairly new. Most are national organizations and some are local prototypes; but all have a solid track record of delivering services that are useful and meaningful. Before you select an organization, ask yourself a few questions. How much time do you want to serve? What kind of service fits your personality? What neighborhood and community do you want to work in? Which target population do you want to work with? What skills do you have to offer? What would you like to gain from the experience? If, for example, you're over 17 can commit a full year, and would like leadership training, some income, and a stipend, you should seriously consider AmeriCorps. If you want to commit a year and you're over 18 and want to work on environmental, art, or music projects, or in community development, you should think about Volunteers in Service to America (VISTA). If you only have a weekend or one day a week, you like working with your hands, and you want to be outdoors, Habitat for Humanity will probably be perfect. If you only have a few hours a week and enjoy children, consider mentoring or tutoring with an educational group. It might take some reflection and research, but there is a fulfilling opportunity for everyone. Historically, our greatest strength as a nation has been to be there for one another. Citizen participation is the lifeblood of democracy. As Thomas Paine put it, ``The highest calling of every individual in a democratic society is that of citizen!'' Accidents of nature and abstract notions of improvement do not make our communities better or healthier places in which to live and work. They get better because people like you decide that they want to make a difference. Volunteering is not a conservative or liberal, Democratic or Republican issue; caring and compassion simply help to define us as being human, Unfortunately, opportunistic radio talk-show hosts and reactionary politicians have spread two false myths about community service. The first is the notion that only inner-city minorities benefit from volunteer efforts. Here's a story about that myth, told to me by a friend who was in VISTA. He was helping local groups organize fuel cooperatives many years ago, in small towns in Maine. That winter was unusually cold and the price of home heating had skyrocketed, placing an enormous financial burden on most families in the state, which had a low per-capita income. He was invited to make a presentation to about two hundred residents in their town's church. After the talk, one of the ``happy guy'' television reporters from Portland baited a farmer, asking, ``What do you think of this outside agitation?'' The farmer, who was about seventy-five, paused for a moment; and, with an edge of flint in his voice, he said, ``You know, I'm a fourth- generation Republican Yankee, just like my father, my grandfather, and my great-grandfather, but if I've learned anything, it's that there are two kinds of politics and economics in America. The first kind is what I see on television and what politicians tell me when they want my vote. The other kind is what me and my friends talk about over doughnuts and coffee. And that's what this young fellow was talking about tonight, and he made a lot of sense to me. I'm joining the co- op.'' Over 65 percent of America's poor are, like this farmer, white, and white families with children are the fastest growing homeless population. The myth that social programs only serve inner-city minorities stigmatizes volunteer social programs, which are, in fact, color-blind. The second myth is that the vast majority of individuals who volunteer for community service are naive, idealistic do-gooders. Here's a story about that myth. It happened to me in a bookstore in Northern California. Six years ago, I was a technical advisor to the producers of a public television series called ``The New War on Poverty.'' There was a companion book to the series, and since I had been one of the contributing editors, the publisher asked me to give readings. This particular evening, I showed film clips from the series and spoke about the importance of several War on Poverty programs, including Head Start, the Job Corps, VISTA, Legal Services, and Upward Bound. While I was signing books after the reading, a woman in her mid- twenties who looked like a quintessential California valley girl, blond hair, blue eyes, approached me with tears in her eyes. I asked if I had said anything that offended her. She replied that I had not and told me she was nonpolitical, conservative, and in her last year of law school. She had been a political science major at college but knew nothing about the history of the War on Poverty. She said she was ashamed because, despite having benefited from two of the programs I had spoken about, Head Start and Upward Bound, she had never before felt a responsibility to give back to her community, and to assure that these programs would be continued so that others could have the same opportunities she had. Like this woman, the vast majority of volunteers I've worked with are not idealistic, but are serious realists. They are only too aware that as a nation we cannot squander our human and natural resources. Community service not only exposes the sterility of this kind of idealism-versus-realism debate, but helps individuals to integrate their own idealism and realism. An idealist without a healthy dose of realism tends to become a naive romantic. A realist without ideals tends to become a cynic. Community service helps you put your ideals to work in a realistic setting. It creates a dynamic tension that gives you a coherent and comprehensive approach to complex problems. I've seen it happen time and again with my students, and with VISTA and AmeriCorps volunteers. Dr. Margaret Mead, one of my teachers in graduate school at Columbia, wrote that a truly healthy person is a thinking, feeling, acting person. That's what serving helps us to achieve. The talk-show hosts and politicians who push these myths are scapegoating and attacking the most vulnerable segments of our society. They are adept at moralizing over the problems of the homeless and the hungry, the unemployed and the underemployed, drug users and the mentality ill, and over such issues as infant mortality, child and spousal abuse, and disrupted families. But they have neither the heart nor the will for rigorous thought and the work of finding cures, nor even relieving some of the suffering or symptoms. Just as military service and patriotism should not be politicized, neither should community service. Nearly 40 years ago, when President John F. Kennedy launched the Peace Corps, he made this oft-quoted suggestion: ``Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.'' After 30 years of firsthand experience with hundreds of volunteers, I would make a follow-up suggestion: ``Ask not what you can do for your community and the people you serve, but what they can do for you.'' Community service is very much a two-way street. It is about giving and receiving, and the receiving can be nourishing for the heart and mind. The very act of serving taps into a wellspring of empathy and generosity that is both personally gratifying and energizing. Again and again, former volunteers described their experiences with words like these: adventure, growth, human connection, exciting, spiritual, learning, and enjoyable. I saw this in action 3 years ago when I decided to give the students in each of my classes, mostly university seniors, the choice between a mid-semester exam or sixteen hours of community service. The students unanimously chose service--though most of them didn't know what was in store for them. They had a choice of about ten different activities organized by the Public Service Center at the University of California, Berkeley. Here's what one student wrote about this experience: ``Before I started volunteering, I had very different expectations about the [after-school] program. I thought it would be very sports-oriented with little academic emphasis. Luckily, my expectations proved false. The program for fourth and fifth-grader at the Thousand Oaks/Franklin Elementary School, has a set schedule for each grade. The students rotate between free play, sports, library study time, circle time, and arts and crafts. It was in the library that I saw how truly behind these children are in mathematics, reading, and grammar. In addition, I never expected to see the immense poverty that these children experience or to be so emotionally affected by it. Last week, I learned that one of my favorite children is homeless. It seems so silly to be reprimanding him for not doing his homework and not putting out the effort at school. This seems so trivial compared to the real-life horrors that he must experience. Although I had my expectations, never did I anticipate the emotional attachment that I now share with these children. I find myself yearning to become a teacher, which was a career I never thought about before this program. I know that as these children grow, they will probably forget about me; but I know I will never forget them. I have truly changed and matured as a result of them. A second student wrote: Before I started tutoring I was really scared, because I didn't know what tutors did in junior high schools. I was afraid of not being able to explain things so that the kids could understand. I thought I might also lose patience quickly with kids who were slower in understanding and for whom I would have to repeatedly state the same thing. I was concerned that the kids would resent me or not respect me because I wasn't the teacher and was closer to their age. And finally, I thought they wouldn't like me; the first day I even had trouble introducing myself because of this initial uncertainty. Contrary to these preliminary fears, however, tutoring at Willard has been a life-changing experience for me. I've found that I have more patience working with kids than I've ever had in any other area of my life. I work hard to come up with lots of examples when the kids I'm working with don't understand. We relate well to one another because I'm close to their age, yet they respect me because I go to Cal and they know that I'm there to help them. It's been the joy of my semester to work with these students, who I really appreciate. These comments were typical of the experience of nearly all 80 students. Their testimony is consistent with the more formal academic research and evaluations, which tell us that service-learning clearly enriches and enhances the individual volunteer in multiple ways. And the same things happened to me during my own community service 35 years ago, when I taught in Harlem during the early years of the War on Poverty and VISTA. My students now, and I back then, confronted the complexities of the everyday worlds of individuals and communities quite different from our own. We are forced to deal with difficult social and economic realities. It was an eye-opener to learn about the inequities and injustices of our society, to see firsthand the painful struggles of children who did not have the educational, social, or economic opportunities that we took for granted. This experience was humbling and it broke down my insularity, for which I'm truly grateful. Again, it was Dr. Margaret Mead who called this ``heart-learning.'' Community service also taught me an important lesson about our society: ethical values and healthy communities are not inherited. They are either recreated through action by each generation, or they are not. That is what makes AmeriCorps, VISTA, and other forms of community service unique and valuable. They help us to regenerate our best values and principles as individuals and as a society. From Plato to the present, civic virtue has been at the core of civilized behavior. My experience as a teacher and with service-learning has taught me that moral and ethical values cannot survive from one generation to the next if the only preservatives are texts or research studies. Real-life experience is the crucible for shaping values. Out of it develop an intuition and a living memory that are the seeds of a humane and just society. The task of passing along to the young our best civic traditions is made more difficult by the steady shift of emphasis away from qualitative values civility, cooperation, and the public interest, to quantitative ones, competition, making it, and privatism, as well as the demoralizing pursuit of mindless consumerism and trivia force-fed us by the mass media. Just about every parent and teacher I know has, in one way or another, expressed the concern that they cannot compete with the marketing techniques of the mass media, particularly television. They are worried about the potential consequences of the growing acquisitiveness, the indulgence, and the self-centeredness of children. You hear this from conservatives, liberals, and moderates. Small wonder. The average eighteen-year-old in the United States has seen more than 380,000 television commercials. We haven't begun to comprehend the inherent brutality of this media saturation on our children's psyches. Materialism and assumptions of entitlement breed boredom, cynicism, drug abuse, and crime for kicks. Passivity, isolation, and depression come with television and on-line addiction. Ignorance, fear, and prejudice come from insularity and exclusivity. A national and local effort to promote community service by young people is the best antidote to these social ills. The goals are inclusive and nourishing; they seek to honor diversity, to protect the environment, and to enrich our Nation's educational, social, and economic policies so that they enhance human dignity. On a personal level, volunteering, the very act of caring and doing, makes a substantial difference in our individual lives because it nourishes the moral intelligence required for critical judgment and mature behavior. Dr. Seuss reminded us in The Lorax that ``unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot nothing is going to get better. It's not.'' September 11, 2001, as tragic and traumatic as it was, can serve as a transformative event for the American people. We responded to this crisis with introspection, generosity, and caring. Now is not the time to push the snooze button and return to civic fatuity and complacency. Just as we marshaled our forces and mobilized our capacities to confront a foreign enemy, we can take action and confront our domestic problems and conflicts on the home front. In the real world, we know that taking ordinary initiatives can make a difference. It is within our power to move beyond a disaster and to create new opportunities. What it comes down to is assuming personal responsibility. If we decide to become involved in voluntary efforts, we can restore idealism, realism, responsiveness, and vitality to our institutions and our communities. At her memorial service, it was said of Eleanor Roosevelt, the most influential American woman of the twentieth century, ``she would rather light a candle then curse the darkness.'' What was true for her then is true for us now. The choice to make a difference is ours.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the last year, Roger J. Robicheau, of Holbrook, MA, has taken the time to share with me many of his poems that were inspired by the events of September 11 and our country's efforts to heal the wounds of that day. His eloquence has captured the heroes who sacrificed so much for so many, has lifted my spirits throughout the year and has offered insightful perspective on that tragic day. I ask that his latest poem, ``The Eleventh of September,'' be printed in the Record so that my colleagues and my fellow Americans can share in his thoughts and prayers for our country. The Eleventh of September We mourn their loss this day this year Those now with God, no danger near So many loved ones left do stand Confronting loss throughout our land My heart goes out to those who do No one can fathom what they view I firmly pray for peace of mind Dear God please help each one to find And to our soldiers now at war God guide above, at sea, on shore They are the best, I have no doubt Our country's pride, complete, devout The finest force you'll ever see All freedom grown through liberty One final thought comes clear to me For what must live in infamy Absolutely--We'll Remember The Eleventh--of September

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Tuesday evening the Boston City Council lost one of its most capable and well-liked members, Councillor Brian Honan. I rise today to join with his family, constituents and staff in mourning the loss of this universally loved man. His brief time with us proved that politics can make a difference in people's lives, that the values of a small neighborhood can help guide a city, and that integrity and humility can transcend disagreements and carve out common ground. You don't have to search far to see what Brian stood for. There are two structures in the Allston neighborhood of Boston that stand as the pillars of his dedication and commitment he brought to public service. The West End Boys and Girls House sits on the opposite side of Ringer Park from Mary and Patrick Honan's home on Gordon Street, and together these two buildings symbolize the values of family and community that guided Brian through the public life he led and loved. Prior to being elected to the Boston City Council in 1995, Brian served as a Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney for six years under District Attorney Ralph Martin. Brian coordinated the prosecution of 15,000 cases a year in the Roxbury District and through his dedication and tenacity rose to be a supervisor in both the Roxbury and Dorchester District Courts. Motivated by a fierce instinct to bring violent criminals to justice, Brian created fast-track prosecutions for domestic violence and gun-related crimes and helped bring swift justice to those who put our families and communities in danger. Once sworn-in to the Boston City Council in 1996, Brian served with distinction as Chair of the City Council's Committee on Banking & Community Investment and the Committee on Residency. Through these committees, Councillor Honan co-sponsored an order to provide relief from costly prescription drug costs for Boston's seniors and helped increase housing and commercial opportunities by increasing much-needed capital improvement funds. Brian also fought for the Living Wage Amendment, sponsored legislation to preserve affordable housing for seniors, and co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership legislation. It is on the streets and in the homes of Allston-Brighton where Brian's most lasting achievements can be seen. After becoming a member of the West End House when it first opened its Allston Street location in 1971, Brian stood with his older brother Kevin as its most passionate advocates and defenders. As a councillor, he helped Allston- Brighton build a shining new library in Allston and a brand new Oak Square YMCA facility in Brighton, which will stand as two enduring symbols of the dedication he brought to elected office. As a leader on such initiatives as the Allston-Brighton Area Planning Action Council and the Allston-Brighton Healthy Boston Coalition, Brian demonstrated his enduring commitment to helping children, seniors and families have an enjoyable and productive life. From the classrooms of St. Patrick's High School to Boston's courtrooms, Brian demonstrated a quiet strength that makes his premature departure all the more painful. Together with my constituents across Boston, I treasure the time we shared with him. I join with his family and friends in mourning his passing.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have shortage of childcare in this country, and it is a problem for our families, a problem for our businesses, and a problem for our economy. The Census Bureau estimates that there are approximately 24 million school age children with parents who are in the workforce or pursuing education, and the numbers are growing. There has been a 43 percent increase in dual-earner families and single parent families over the last half a century. As parents leave the home for work and education, the need for quality childcare in America continues to increase. As Chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I think we can foster the establishment and expansion of existing child care businesses through the Small Business Administration. Today with Senators Harkin and Landrieu, I am introducing, the Child Care Lending Pilot Act, a bill to create a four-year pilot that allows small, non- profit child care businesses to access financing through SBA's 504 loans. Non-profit child care small businesses already have access to financing through the SBA's microloan program, which many of us made possible through legislation in 1997. Microloans help with working capital and the purchase of some equipment, but there is also a need to help finance the purchase of buildings, expand existing facilities to meet child care demand, or improve facilities. It is appropriate to provide financing through the 504 program because it was created to spur economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20 percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable. As anyone with children knows, quality childcare comes at a very high cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income families. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that childcare for a 4- year-old in a childcare center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year in cities and states around the nation. In all but one state, the average annual cost of childcare in urban area childcare centers is more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide grants and loans to assist childcare businesses, more must be done to increase the supply of childcare and improve the quality of programs for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under federal law receives it. For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task force in my home State of Massachusetts to study the state of child care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than 60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand their existing space. Child care in general is not a high earning industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make childcare more affordable for families and does not serve the children well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety and quality of the childcare provided would be in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so non-profit childcare providers can access funds to start new centers or expand and improve upon existing centers. Allowing non-profit childcare centers to receive SBA loans will be the first step toward improving the availability of childcare in the United States. Non-profit childcare centers provide the same quality of care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers often serve our nation's most needy communities. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that in this great nation, childcare should be available to all families in all income brackets. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters of support be printed in the Record. These letters demonstrate that this is a good investment that is good for our country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am introducing legislation which I hope will create an equitable solution to the dilemma facing many wireless companies in America. Unfortunately, due to the uncertain legal status of licenses related to that FCC Auction No. 35, several companies have contingent liabilities in the millions or billions of dollars. These contingent liabilities are damaging the companies' ability to acquire additional spectrum to meet the urgent needs of wireless consumers and to roll out new and innovative services to consumers. The affected providers are the successful bidders for wireless spectrum that the Federal Communications Commission auctioned in Auction No. 35. Some of the spectrum had previously been licensed to companies, including NextWave Personal Communications Inc., whose bankruptcy filings and subsequent failure to pay amounts due to the FCC for their licenses led to the cancellation of those licenses. The status of NextWave's licenses has been the subject of extended litigation in the Bankruptcy Court, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States. In June 2001, after the FCC had conducted Auction No. 35, the D.C. Circuit held that ``the Commission violated the provision of the Bankruptcy Code that prohibits governmental entities from revoking debtors' licenses solely for failure to pay debts dischargeable in bankruptcy,'' effectively nullifying the FCC ability to deliver the licenses to winning bidder. In August 2001, after the issuance of that court's mandate, the FCC restored the NextWave licenses to active status. More recently, the Supreme Court granted the FCC's petition for a writ of certiorari to review the D.C. Circuit's judgment. The Supreme Court will not hear arguments in the case until the fall of 2002 and is unlikely to announce a decision until the spring of 2003. If the Court reverses the D.C. Circuit's decision, there will be further litigation on remand in the D.C. Circuit to resolve issues that the court did not reach in its first decision. The result is that there is not likely to be a final resolution of the status of the NextWave licenses and the FCC therefore will not be in a position to deliver licenses to the winners of Auction No. 35--until three or more years from the time the auction was concluded. Although the FCC recently returned most of the down payment funds previously deposited by successful bidders, it continues to hold without interest substantial sums equal to three percent of the total amount of the winning bids. It apparently intends to hold those sums indefinitely. Despite the lengthy delay in delivering the licenses, moreover, the FCC takes the position that the successful bidders remain obligated, on a mere 10 days' notice, to pay the full amount of their successful bids if and when the FCC at some unknown future date establishes its right to deliver those licenses. The situation is grossly unfair to those who bid on these licenses in good faith. Companies calibrate their bids on the understanding, implicit in any commercial arrangement, that delivery of the licenses will occur in a reasonable time following the auction. That expectation is especially crucial in the context of spectrum licenses, given the recent volatility we have seen in market prices for spectrum. It is particularly burdensome to such companies for the FCC to hold even a portion of their enormous down payments without paying interest for such extended periods. Even more troubling, the companies' contingent obligation to pay on very short notice the remaining $16 billion they bid for the licenses at issue adversely affects their capacity to serve the needs of their customers. Such large contingent liabilities impede the companies' ability to take interim steps, such as building out its network further or leasing spectrum from others, that may be urgently needed to improve service for its customers. The FCC's failure to respond appropriately to alleviate these serious burdens disserves the public interest. This bill addresses these problems in two ways. It requires the FCC promptly to refund to the winning bidders the full remaining amount of their deposits and down payments. In addition, it gives each winning bidder an opportunity to elect, within 15 days after enactment, to relinquish its rights and to be relieved of all further obligations under Auction No. 35. Those who choose to retain their rights and obligations under Auction No. 35 will nonetheless be entitled to the return of their deposits and down payments in the interim. If and when the FCC is in a position to deliver the licenses at issue to those who remain obligated, they will be required to pay the full amount of their bid in accordance with the FCC's existing regulations. Those who elect to terminate their rights and obligations under Auction No. 35 will be free to pursue other opportunities to acquire spectrum and serve consumers. I want to make this next point especially clear, nothing in the bill's provisions would affect the FCC's legal position in the Supreme Court with respect to the validity of its original cancellation of the NextWave licenses. If the FCC prevails in the Supreme Court, it will reestablish its right to allocate the spectrum at issue. It may then grant licenses to Auction No. 35 winning bidders who have declined to relinquish their rights under the bill. It will also be free to conduct a re-auction of any spectrum won by Auction No. 35 bidders who have in the meantime elected to relinquish their auction rights.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Thank you for that clarification, Senator Baucus. It is important that we make these programs work for all of America's workers, and I look forward to working with you to make that happen. It is my understanding that the Administration is preparing letters specifically outlining TAA eligibility for fishermen, and I look forward to receiving those very soon.