John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am here today to urge passage of a bill to improve the U.S. Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, a program which makes an enormous difference to many aspiring entrepreneurs through very small loans of up to $35,000. The demand for these loans go up when the economy slows down and people lose their jobs or face reduced hours because they often start their own business or start a part-time venture to patch their income losses. Senator Snowe worked very closely with me to make this day happen. We wish to thank Senators Bond, Wellstone, Cleland, Landrieu, Harkin, Levin, Lieberman, Bingaman, Enzi, Kohl, Snowe, Johnson, Daschle, Conrad, Burns, Inouye, Baucus, and Jeffords for joining us and cosponsoring this bill. Senator Snowe and I have worked together many times on this program, pushing to make sure our country's smallest businesses have access to capital and business assistance. In this instance, we are bringing before the Senate changes that the Senate supported unanimously as part of its version of last year's SBA Reauthorization bill, but were not included by the House because they had not considered them in a hearing. This package of changes was reintroduced this year and supported unanimously by the Senate Small Business Committee. This bill amends the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program to make it more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to microentrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined for leaders to make loans and provide management assistance. The changes in this bill complement the program and technical changes made last year. The program provides for microloans, of just $10,000, on average, in order to allow many prospective entrepreneurs to realize their dream and start their own business. This provides them with financial independence and sometimes allows individuals to go from welfare to employment. Let me just run through some of the provisions of the Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001. First, it eliminates the requirement that SBA microloans be ``short-term'' loans. This change will give intermediaries greater latitude in developing microloan products because they will be able to offer their borrowers revolving lines of credit. It will also cut transaction costs for both the borrower and the microlender and will generally make it easier to fund these types of very small businesses. Why are revolving lines of credit important? Because seasonal types of businesses really need revolving lines of credit instead of, for instance, a 90- or 120-day note. For example, if you are a building contractor or painter, you may need $15,000 to front supplies and pay your workers because most clients only pay when the work is done. So, under the current scenario, if you were to borrow the $15,000 from a microlender, you would pay back small payments at the 30 and 60 day markers. The entire remaining balance would be due upon receipt of payment from your client. Then, when the next client came along, the borrower would have to enter into an entirely new loan transaction. Under the new scenario, a revolving line of credit would eliminate the need for a new loan transaction. The contractor would pay the debt upon receipt of payment from the first client and then simply write a check against his or her line of credit when the second client comes along. I would like to emphasize that our Committee does not intend for this flexibility to be used to make loans with long terms, such as 15 or 30 years. I spent a lot of time describing that provision because I want people to understand the needs of these very tiny businesses and how SBA's credit programs evolve to meet the market. Of course, this legislation makes other small but important changes. It broadens the eligibility criteria for potential microintermediaries, which would allow more people to benefit from the program and stimulate the creation of additional new businesses to start up. This is accomplished by deeming intermediaries eligible if they have one year of equivalent experience rather than only actual experience in making loans to startup, newly established, or growing small businesses. Third, this bill expands the program's flexibility for intermediaries to subcontract out technical assistance and offer pre-loan technical assistance. The bill eliminates the restriction on how much technical assistance funding an intermediary can use for pre-loan assistance and allows the intermediary to use its discretion to determine the appropriate amount. Currently, intermediaries are limited to using up to 25 percent of their funds to assist prospective borrowers. This change allows an intermediary to allocate as much technical assistance as appropriate. The bill also increases the percentage of technical assistance grant funds that an intermediary can use to subcontract out technical assistance. Currently, intermediaries can only subcontract 25 percent, and this legislation would raise it to 35 percent. Finally, the bill establishes a new peer-to-peer mentoring program to help new intermediaries acquire the basic knowledge needed to run a business from experienced mentors. The bill will authorize up to $1 million of annual appropriations for such purposes. Support for the Microloan Program is not only bipartisan but nationwide--it has support from all parts of the country. By removing a number of barriers to entry, this bill will be a great advantage to new microintermediaries, who, in turn, will improve their ability to assist microentrepreneurs, thus, increasing the opportunities for the entrepreneurs, their businesses and their communities. I urge my colleagues to support the Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to be among the first to congratulate Senators Hollings and McCain for their leadership in getting us to this point. Without their leadership we would not have a conference report, so I thank them for their fine work. The conference report that we have signed off on, and to which the full Senate is about to agree, is historic legislation. Our legislation will immediately put an end to the unacceptable state of airport security. Everyone knows the technical aspects of the bill by now. But our bill will, for the first time, guarantee uniformity in our Nation's aviation security. The bill creates a seamless web of improved security, so that passengers boarding a plane in Worcester will have the same level of heightened security as someone boarding a plane in Chicago. This is critical to Americans in places where small airports are the norm. It would have been unacceptable to create a two-tiered system of security. Our bill also provides accountability in aviation security. For too long the FAA, airports, airlines and private security companies have been able to point fingers at one another without any real improvements being made in security. The Congress has passed law upon law designed to improve things, but these laws never seemed to be fully implemented. That all ends with the passage of this legislation. It is my hope that a message has been delivered clearly to anyone with any security responsibilities at our airports. The Congress has empowered the Federal Government to make serious and lasting improvements in airport security. We have provided all the necessary tools to improve the screening of people and their bags. We must now use those tools to make the American people as safe as possible when they fly. We have also placed, through passage of this bill, a renewed confidence in the Federal Government to perform vital national security functions. No one questions the superior job that the 36,000 men and women of the Coast Guard do in protecting our ports. No one doubts that the Customs Bureau does a fine job of inspecting trucks, planes and ships that unload cargo in the United States. But many people will be watching closely as Federal managers, supervisors and, ultimately, screeners, begin to protect our airports. They must know that the flying public will be watching them closely, and they must not fail. Equally important as improving the quality of screeners, we recognize the need to improve the technology used in airport security. Technology can be a great ally to us, and this legislation places a great emphasis on investing in research and development. We authorize grants for the development of new technology to improve security. With new technologies, we enhance our ability to authenticate passenger and employee identification, our ability to control access to secure areas and the way we screen checked baggage. Our bill dramatically improves the screening of checked baggage. We currently only screen about 3 percent of all baggage that goes into the belly of a plane. Our legislation will take immediate steps to screen all baggage for explosives, ultimately ensuring that all baggage is screened with the most sophisticated technology available. During debate on the Senate bill, I filed an amendment that would have required the screening of all checked baggage by 2005. This bill sets the deadline a year earlier. I believe that this is an extremely ambitious target, but it is one that we must be prepared to meet. The Congress must follow through by providing critical financial resources to help acquire and deploy explosive detection systems so that the Department of Transportation can meet this deadline. Finally, I thank our House colleagues who were invaluable in brokering this deal. Chairman Don Young and Ranking Member Jim Oberstar were key players in this process and the entire Senate must owe them our gratitude.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to vote for the Commerce, Justice, State, and the Judiciary, CJS, conference report today. This legislation is critical to our continuing efforts to fight terrorism and increase homeland security. I am troubled, however, that the conference report appropriates only $14.4 million for the Police Corps Program, an amount which I believe is insufficient to adequately fund this critically important program. I strongly support the $30 million level of funding that was included in the Senate version of the CJS appropriations bill. The CJS conference report before us today slashes the budget of the Police Corps program in half. It is more important now than ever before that we work to ensure that Americans feel safe within their communities and that our Nation's police forces have strong federal support. The Police Corps Program helps police and sheriffs' departments to increase the number of officers with advanced education and training. It provides Federal scholarships to highly motivated students who agree to serve as police officers or sheriffs' deputies for at least 4 years. Participants in the program are assigned to areas of the country that are in the most desperate need for additional officers. All of the participants serve on community patrol. The benefits of this program can be seen in many ways. By encouraging educated young men and women to enter into the police force, Police Corps improves the quality of law enforcement in towns and States throughout the country. Police Corps reduces the local costs of hiring and training new officers by providing Federal funding law enforcement training. In addition, the Federal Government pays police departments that hire participants $10,000 a year per participant for the first 4 years of service. Police Corps also offers a scholarship program for children of officers killed in the line of duty. Eligible children can receive up to $30,000 to cover educational expenses. There is no service or repayment obligation and the application process is non-competitive. I can think of no time in our recent history more appropriate than now, in the wake of the terrible loss of police officers on September 11, to ensure that this program is adequately funded. Every police department in the country is being called upon to increase their vigilance, to expand their duties, and to do more to respond to the threat of terrorism. Increased funding for the Police Corps Program would improve the quality and capabilities of police departments throughout the country by educating and training qualified, motivated young people. The whole country stands to benefit from this program. I deeply regret that the CJS conference report does not contain, at a minimum, level funding for the Police Corps Program and am saddened that the program has been so drastically cut.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as an original author and cosponsor of the moratorium, which I believe in, I appreciate the comments. I had hoped, and in many ways thought this was not ripe for this vote, but I think it was important for us to have gone through the process. I look forward to seeing if we can come up with a sensible resolution. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona, we spent a lot of hours working through this with Senator Enzi, Senator Dorgan, Senator McCain, myself, and many others. This was a very difficult vote for many of us. We do not support any tax on the Internet itself. We don't support access taxes. We don't support content taxes. We don't support discriminatory taxes. Many of us would like to see a permanent moratorium on all of those kinds of taxes. At the same time, a lot of us were caught in a place where we thought it important to send the message that we have to get back to the table in order to come to a consensus as to how we equalize the economic playing field in the United States in a way that is fair. I hope the Senator from Arizona will follow up with us, so we can come back to that table to do what is sensible and fair. I look forward to the chance to do that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is very important that we pass S. 1196, the Small Business Investment Company Amendments Act of 2001, today. Until this legislation is enacted, the SBA cannot provide any leverage to the SBICs to make investments. We need to vote, send it to the House and on to the President's desk for signature. I joined Senator Bond in introducing this bill in July and all 19 members of our committee have agreed unanimously in favor of its passage. Why does it enjoy so much support? For anyone who missed the article in the Washington Post on November 1, let me talk about the track record of SBA's venture capital program and the role it plays in our economy. Last year, the Agency financed 4,600 venture capital deals, investing $5.6 billion in our fastest-growing small businesses. Over the last 5 years, investing by SBIC-licensed firms has accounted for half of all venture-financing deals. Since its inception, the program has also returned $700 million directly to Federal coffers. Despite this impressive track record, the President's budget eliminated funding for the SBIC participating securities program and reduced the program level for the debenture program, which requires no appropriations. With venture capital having all but dried up, this is no time to eliminate funding and restrict activity for the SBIC programs. As I have said so many times, the programs at the SBA are a bargain. For very little, taxpayers leverage their money to help thousands of small businesses every year and fuel the economy. In the SBIC participating securities program last year, taxpayers spent $1.31 for every $100 leveraged for investment in our fastest- growing companies--companies like Staples, Callaway Golf, Federal Express, and Apple Computer. The main purpose of this act is to adjust the fees charged to Participating Security SBICs from 1 percent to 1.38 percent. The change is necessary because, at the President's request, all funding for this program was eliminated. I disagree with that. I preferred to show fiscal responsibility by level funding the program and then increasing the fees only as much as necessary to raise the program level from $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Consistent with that opinion, as my colleagues may remember, Senator Bond and I offered an amendment to the Budget Resolution, Amendment No. 183, that did just that. It was agreed to in the Senate by voice vote in April and retained in the final budget resolution. Unfortunately, the appropriators had very tough decisions to make and the funding agreed to in our budget amendment was not included in the appropriations process. Despite my disagreement, I am supporting S. 1196 and joining Senator Bond in offering this amendment because if we want to continue this program, it must be funded entirely through fees, which forces us to authorize the fee change. For the record, let me state that the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies testified before both the Senate and House Committees on Small Business in favor of increasing the program level from $2 billion to $3.5 billion. As I just explained, this legislation makes that possible. The other modifications strengthen the oversight and authority of the SBA to take action against bad actors, protect the integrity of the program, and streamline operations.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise before you today to introduce the Global Climate Change Act of 2001. I am pleased to have Senators Stevens, Hollings, Inouye, and Akaka join me as original cosponsors. We face a fundamental environmental challenge. Scientists have warned that pollution and deforestation are raising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, raising global temperatures and altering the world's climate system with adverse and potentially catastrophic implications for the global environment. And, while sea levels rise, species extinction, drought, disease migration and other potential impacts cannot be known with certainty, we know enough to understand that the threat of harm is real and that worst-case scenarios under current ``business-as-usual'' practices are disastrous. The best indicator that other nations believe action is desperately overdue is the conclusion of an agreement to implement the Kyoto Protocol last week in Marrakesh, Morocco. Incredibly, the Marrakesh Accords, under which rules for compliance and international greenhouse gas emissions trading were reached, were concluded without U.S. support. Although the Administration abandoned the Kyoto process in March, to our national detriment, it is critical that the United States map out a clear path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. In the Commerce Committee we have held several hearings to examine the science and the solutions to global warming. We have heard testimony about the potential for wind and other renewable energy to provide our nation the power it needs emissions free. We have heard from companies leading the push for hydrogen fuel cells to provide distributed generation and transportation energy with low emissions. And we've heard from automakers designing the technology for more fuel efficient cars. The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, program and will continue a series of hearings on the issue that was delayed by the attacks of September 11. The United States must assert itself as a leader in research, development and deployment of these and other technologies. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 would help us move down a path of scientific understanding, research, policy innovation and technological innovation. The bill will complement other legislation under consideration in other Senate committees for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, as well as legislation to improve CAFE in the Commerce Committee. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 will also provide a solid technical basis upon which to build any future greenhouse emissions tracking, reduction, or trading programs. The bill contains provisions aimed at bringing the world-class science, technology, and planning expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and other Department of Commerce programs to bear on this problem, whether it is in climate observation, measurement and verification, information management, modeling and monitoring, technology development and transfer, or hazards planning and prevention. First, the bill would endorse the elevation of climate change issues in the Administration, identifying the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, as the coordinating entity in the White House. An interagency task force on global climate change action chaired by the Secretary of Commerce would be responsible for developing a multi- faceted climate change action strategy, including development of mitigation approaches. Second, it would create an emissions reporting system to ensure accurate measurement, reporting, and verifica-tion of greenhouse gas emissions, which is essential to any efforts to reduce our emissions. The bill utilizes the technical capabilities of the NIST and NOAA to establish uniform and credible new measurement methods and technologies. It establishes a mandatory reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions for entities operating in the U.S. with significant emissions. The system will maximize completeness, accuracy and transparency and minimize costs for covered entities. It will be designed to ensure interoperability of any U.S., state or international system of reporting and trading greenhouse gas emissions. It would also require Commerce to issue annual reports showing greenhouse gas emissions and trends, including areas where reductions have occurred. Third, the bill would ensure that we in Congress get the best independent scientific and technical expertise in our climate change oversight role. The bill would create a Science and Technology Assessment Service that would provide ongoing science and technology advice to Congress. Since the Office of Technology Assessment, OTA, was eliminated in 1995, experts agree that Congress has suffered from lack of ongoing, credible advice. While some objected to the OTA structure, all agree that expert technical advice for Congress is essential to ensuring we hold up our end in efforts to make progress on this important issue. Congressional requests for advice are overburdening the National Academy of Sciences and threatening to compromise its independent stature. The bill would economize on resources and personnel by utilizing the administrative services of the Library of Congress and the expertise of the National Research Council, and provide an ongoing separate service to Congress that will not threaten compromise NAS's independent role. Fourth, the bill revises the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and the National Climate Program Act, so that interagency and Commerce Department programs focus on improving detection, modeling and regional impact assessments and are better managed to provide useful information to government decisionmakers and managers. In addition, the legislative changes would direct improvements in atmospheric monitoring and establish a new integrated coastal and ocean observing system to ensure we understand and predict the role of oceans in climate. Finally, it would create an integrated program office for the USGCRP within the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure budget coordination, using models established under the multiagency National Oceanographic Partnership Program and the NPOESS, polar satellite, convergence process. Fifth, the bill addresses a critical component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: technology innovation. The bill is aimed at increasing the Department of Commerce's technology innovation role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, it would utilize the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, to promote and commercialize energy efficient technologies and the Manufacturing Extension Program for small manufacturers. This section would also direct NIST to develop methods and technologies, including process improvements, that can be used in a variety of sectors to reduce production of greenhouse gases. Finally, we must admit that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the effects of climate change and variability will not end. It is in our interest to undertake assessments and actions now that will help us address safety and infrastructure issues that will likely accompany climate variability and change in the future. There is currently no way for State governments or coastal communities to plan for change on a 20-50 year time horizon. The bill would require NOAA to evaluate vulnerability of regions of the United States, particularly coastal regions, to effects of climate change, including drought and sea level rise, and develop a strategy for helping states deal with the issues. The bill also directs NOAA to work with NASS to develop remote sensing technologies that will help coastal managers identify hazards and make intelligent planning decisions. This legislation neatly rolls into one package key components of any national plan to address climate change: coordinated research, monitoring, reporting and verification, mitigation technology, impact assessment, and adaptation planning. This package is but one of many I hope to see my colleagues in Congress develop to help the United States reduce the threat of global climate change now. The Climate Change meetings in Marrakesh last week show that other nations are ready to act. We can, and must, do the same, even without leadership from this Administration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise before you today to introduce the Global Climate Change Act of 2001. I am pleased to have Senators Stevens, Hollings, Inouye, and Akaka join me as original cosponsors. We face a fundamental environmental challenge. Scientists have warned that pollution and deforestation are raising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases, raising global temperatures and altering the world's climate system with adverse and potentially catastrophic implications for the global environment. And, while sea levels rise, species extinction, drought, disease migration and other potential impacts cannot be known with certainty, we know enough to understand that the threat of harm is real and that worst-case scenarios under current ``business-as-usual'' practices are disastrous. The best indicator that other nations believe action is desperately overdue is the conclusion of an agreement to implement the Kyoto Protocol last week in Marrakesh, Morocco. Incredibly, the Marrakesh Accords, under which rules for compliance and international greenhouse gas emissions trading were reached, were concluded without U.S. support. Although the Administration abandoned the Kyoto process in March, to our national detriment, it is critical that the United States map out a clear path to reduce greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. In the Commerce Committee we have held several hearings to examine the science and the solutions to global warming. We have heard testimony about the potential for wind and other renewable energy to provide our nation the power it needs emissions free. We have heard from companies leading the push for hydrogen fuel cells to provide distributed generation and transportation energy with low emissions. And we've heard from automakers designing the technology for more fuel efficient cars. The Commerce Committee has jurisdiction over of the Corporate Average Fuel Economy, CAFE, program and will continue a series of hearings on the issue that was delayed by the attacks of September 11. The United States must assert itself as a leader in research, development and deployment of these and other technologies. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 would help us move down a path of scientific understanding, research, policy innovation and technological innovation. The bill will complement other legislation under consideration in other Senate committees for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions, as well as legislation to improve CAFE in the Commerce Committee. The Global Climate Change Act of 2001 will also provide a solid technical basis upon which to build any future greenhouse emissions tracking, reduction, or trading programs. The bill contains provisions aimed at bringing the world-class science, technology, and planning expertise of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST, and other Department of Commerce programs to bear on this problem, whether it is in climate observation, measurement and verification, information management, modeling and monitoring, technology development and transfer, or hazards planning and prevention. First, the bill would endorse the elevation of climate change issues in the Administration, identifying the Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, as the coordinating entity in the White House. An interagency task force on global climate change action chaired by the Secretary of Commerce would be responsible for developing a multi- faceted climate change action strategy, including development of mitigation approaches. Second, it would create an emissions reporting system to ensure accurate measurement, reporting, and verifica-tion of greenhouse gas emissions, which is essential to any efforts to reduce our emissions. The bill utilizes the technical capabilities of the NIST and NOAA to establish uniform and credible new measurement methods and technologies. It establishes a mandatory reporting system for greenhouse gas emissions for entities operating in the U.S. with significant emissions. The system will maximize completeness, accuracy and transparency and minimize costs for covered entities. It will be designed to ensure interoperability of any U.S., state or international system of reporting and trading greenhouse gas emissions. It would also require Commerce to issue annual reports showing greenhouse gas emissions and trends, including areas where reductions have occurred. Third, the bill would ensure that we in Congress get the best independent scientific and technical expertise in our climate change oversight role. The bill would create a Science and Technology Assessment Service that would provide ongoing science and technology advice to Congress. Since the Office of Technology Assessment, OTA, was eliminated in 1995, experts agree that Congress has suffered from lack of ongoing, credible advice. While some objected to the OTA structure, all agree that expert technical advice for Congress is essential to ensuring we hold up our end in efforts to make progress on this important issue. Congressional requests for advice are overburdening the National Academy of Sciences and threatening to compromise its independent stature. The bill would economize on resources and personnel by utilizing the administrative services of the Library of Congress and the expertise of the National Research Council, and provide an ongoing separate service to Congress that will not threaten compromise NAS's independent role. Fourth, the bill revises the Global Change Research Act of 1990 and the National Climate Program Act, so that interagency and Commerce Department programs focus on improving detection, modeling and regional impact assessments and are better managed to provide useful information to government decisionmakers and managers. In addition, the legislative changes would direct improvements in atmospheric monitoring and establish a new integrated coastal and ocean observing system to ensure we understand and predict the role of oceans in climate. Finally, it would create an integrated program office for the USGCRP within the Office of Science and Technology Policy to ensure budget coordination, using models established under the multiagency National Oceanographic Partnership Program and the NPOESS, polar satellite, convergence process. Fifth, the bill addresses a critical component of reducing greenhouse gas emissions: technology innovation. The bill is aimed at increasing the Department of Commerce's technology innovation role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Specifically, it would utilize the Advanced Technology Program, ATP, to promote and commercialize energy efficient technologies and the Manufacturing Extension Program for small manufacturers. This section would also direct NIST to develop methods and technologies, including process improvements, that can be used in a variety of sectors to reduce production of greenhouse gases. Finally, we must admit that even if we stopped all greenhouse gas emissions tomorrow, the effects of climate change and variability will not end. It is in our interest to undertake assessments and actions now that will help us address safety and infrastructure issues that will likely accompany climate variability and change in the future. There is currently no way for State governments or coastal communities to plan for change on a 20-50 year time horizon. The bill would require NOAA to evaluate vulnerability of regions of the United States, particularly coastal regions, to effects of climate change, including drought and sea level rise, and develop a strategy for helping states deal with the issues. The bill also directs NOAA to work with NASS to develop remote sensing technologies that will help coastal managers identify hazards and make intelligent planning decisions. This legislation neatly rolls into one package key components of any national plan to address climate change: coordinated research, monitoring, reporting and verification, mitigation technology, impact assessment, and adaptation planning. This package is but one of many I hope to see my colleagues in Congress develop to help the United States reduce the threat of global climate change now. The Climate Change meetings in Marrakesh last week show that other nations are ready to act. We can, and must, do the same, even without leadership from this Administration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing a package of targeted, affordable tax relief provisions designed to help the Nation's small businesses during this time of economic distress. While the Finance Committee has recently reported a more general stimulus bill to the full Senate, that measure only contains a few items that will help small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our Nation's economy, creating the majority of new jobs. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe that I have an obligation to do more for small businesses, and I hope that several of the provisions in my bill may be accepted by the Finance Committee's Chairman and Ranking Member as the stimulus bill nears Senate passage. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have also introduced an emergency small business relief bill, S. 1499, which would provide assistance to small business concerns adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11. That bill currently has 51 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans. S. 1499 provides loan and investment assistance, as well as other programmatic relief, to small businesses impacted by the attacks, but it does not contain tax provisions. I am introducing this new bill today to complement what I have tried to accomplish with S. 1499. Given that my emergency bill has such widespread support, I plan on offering it as an amendment to the economic stimulus package when it reaches the Senate floor, and I hope that it will be added to the package before it reaches the President's desk. This important legislation has been held hostage to someone else's political agenda for too long one way or another, it's important that we pass it and achieve the agenda of small businesses hurting across this country. I have titled the bill that I am introducing today ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus Act of 2001.'' Before outlining the contents of the bill, I want my colleagues to know why I have selected this ``affordable'' approach. During this session of Congress, some in Congress have supported what I might call the ``kitchen sink'' approach. It includes everything on small business's tax wish list, often also including a number of items that do not directly relate to small business, such as a complete repeal of the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. As a result, that approach is very expensive, and not something that could be enacted today given the changed budgetary situation and the fact that we are at war. I call my bill an ``affordable'' stimulus package for small business because it is very targeted in the policies that it includes, and, as a result, it will spend our limited resources wisely. It does not include everything that I would like to do for small business on the tax side, but it includes enough to help stimulate this essential component of our economy. Moreover, the bill will help address the tax complexity that many small businesses face because it includes the Single Point Tax Filing Act that has passed the Senate on two previous occasions. Let me briefly explain the contents of my bill. First, as in other Senate proposals, my bill increases the expensing limitation for small businesses. My bill raises it to $35,000, and it increases the phase-out level, above which expensing is not allowed, to $350,000. The stimulus package that I recently voted for in the Finance Committee temporarily increased these amounts to $35,000 and $325,000, respectively. The increases in my bill, however, would be permanent, and both the $35,000 and $350,000 limits would be increased annually for inflation beginning in calendar year 2003. Second, my bill modifies and expands a provision that was signed into law in 1993 regarding new equity investments in small businesses' stock. Under my bill, new investments in companies with capitalization of up to $100 million at the time of investment will have a 75 percent capital gains exclusion if the investments are held at least three years. The exclusion for such investments will be 100 percent if they are made in a business involved in ``critical technologies,'' as defined by the Commerce Department, or in technologies related to transportation security, personal identification, anti-terrorism, pollution minimization, remediation, or waste management. The 100 percent exclusion would also be allowed for investments in specialized small business investment companies, or SSBICs, which are private venture capital companies licensed by the SBA whose investments are made solely in disadvantaged small businesses. Both the 75 and 100 percent exclusion levels would be available for investments made by both individuals and corporations. In addition, the rollover period for such investments would be increased from 60 days to 180 days. The provision passed in 1993 was too narrow, and I hope that this new, expanded capital gains treatment will help prompt new investments in small and entrepreneurial businesses. Third, my bill recognizes that the current depreciation schedules for high-tech equipment and software are out of date, given how quickly such items become obsolete in our fast-changing economy. My bill would reduce the recovery period for computers or peripheral equipment from five years to three, and for software from three years to two. This change would be permanent. Fourth, my bill would make the health insurance expenses of the self- employed fully tax deductible. Under current law, 60 percent is deductible in 2001, 70 percent in 2002, and 100 percent in 2003. My bill would speed up the 100-percent deductibility to this year. Fifth, to simplify tax filing, my bill would include the Single Point Tax Filing Act. This section would simplify the tax filing process for employers by allowing the Internal Revenue Service and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns. This provision has been passed by the Senate twice before, but it has not yet become law. There is currently a demonstration project along these lines in Montana, which is working very well. I believe such authority should extend to all States. Sixth, my bill would extend the existing income averaging provisions to cover fishing as well as farming. In other words, the choice to average income from a farming trade or business under present law would be extended to cover income from the trade or business of fishing as well. Under my bill, a farmer or fisherman electing to average his or her income would owe the alternative minimum tax, AMT, only to the extent he or she would have owed AMT had averaging not been elected. This is an important change that will benefit not only people in my State, but also throughout New England and in other regions of the country where fishing is an important industry. Finally, my bill would modify the tax treatment of investments in debenture small business investment companies, or SBICs, so they are less likely to create unrelated business taxable income, UBTI, liability. The current tax treatment of money borrowed from the government by a debenture SBIC creates taxable income for an otherwise tax-exempt investor, which makes it almost impossible to raise capital from these investors. Free to choose, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create any UBTI liability. Therefore, my bill would assure that money borrowed from the government by an SBIC does not subject tax-exempt investors to UBTI. In so doing, the bill would encourage greater investment in SBICs, which provide critically needed venture capital to emerging small businesses. These venture capital funds are sorely needed in today's stalled economy. I believe that ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus Act of 2001'' will provide a much-needed stimulus to small business in a way that we can afford. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee to have some or all of its provisions enacted into law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing a package of targeted, affordable tax relief provisions designed to help the Nation's small businesses during this time of economic distress. While the Finance Committee has recently reported a more general stimulus bill to the full Senate, that measure only contains a few items that will help small businesses, which are the lifeblood of our Nation's economy, creating the majority of new jobs. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe that I have an obligation to do more for small businesses, and I hope that several of the provisions in my bill may be accepted by the Finance Committee's Chairman and Ranking Member as the stimulus bill nears Senate passage. As many of my colleagues are aware, I have also introduced an emergency small business relief bill, S. 1499, which would provide assistance to small business concerns adversely impacted by the terrorist attacks of September 11. That bill currently has 51 cosponsors, including 15 Republicans. S. 1499 provides loan and investment assistance, as well as other programmatic relief, to small businesses impacted by the attacks, but it does not contain tax provisions. I am introducing this new bill today to complement what I have tried to accomplish with S. 1499. Given that my emergency bill has such widespread support, I plan on offering it as an amendment to the economic stimulus package when it reaches the Senate floor, and I hope that it will be added to the package before it reaches the President's desk. This important legislation has been held hostage to someone else's political agenda for too long one way or another, it's important that we pass it and achieve the agenda of small businesses hurting across this country. I have titled the bill that I am introducing today ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus Act of 2001.'' Before outlining the contents of the bill, I want my colleagues to know why I have selected this ``affordable'' approach. During this session of Congress, some in Congress have supported what I might call the ``kitchen sink'' approach. It includes everything on small business's tax wish list, often also including a number of items that do not directly relate to small business, such as a complete repeal of the individual Alternative Minimum Tax. As a result, that approach is very expensive, and not something that could be enacted today given the changed budgetary situation and the fact that we are at war. I call my bill an ``affordable'' stimulus package for small business because it is very targeted in the policies that it includes, and, as a result, it will spend our limited resources wisely. It does not include everything that I would like to do for small business on the tax side, but it includes enough to help stimulate this essential component of our economy. Moreover, the bill will help address the tax complexity that many small businesses face because it includes the Single Point Tax Filing Act that has passed the Senate on two previous occasions. Let me briefly explain the contents of my bill. First, as in other Senate proposals, my bill increases the expensing limitation for small businesses. My bill raises it to $35,000, and it increases the phase-out level, above which expensing is not allowed, to $350,000. The stimulus package that I recently voted for in the Finance Committee temporarily increased these amounts to $35,000 and $325,000, respectively. The increases in my bill, however, would be permanent, and both the $35,000 and $350,000 limits would be increased annually for inflation beginning in calendar year 2003. Second, my bill modifies and expands a provision that was signed into law in 1993 regarding new equity investments in small businesses' stock. Under my bill, new investments in companies with capitalization of up to $100 million at the time of investment will have a 75 percent capital gains exclusion if the investments are held at least three years. The exclusion for such investments will be 100 percent if they are made in a business involved in ``critical technologies,'' as defined by the Commerce Department, or in technologies related to transportation security, personal identification, anti-terrorism, pollution minimization, remediation, or waste management. The 100 percent exclusion would also be allowed for investments in specialized small business investment companies, or SSBICs, which are private venture capital companies licensed by the SBA whose investments are made solely in disadvantaged small businesses. Both the 75 and 100 percent exclusion levels would be available for investments made by both individuals and corporations. In addition, the rollover period for such investments would be increased from 60 days to 180 days. The provision passed in 1993 was too narrow, and I hope that this new, expanded capital gains treatment will help prompt new investments in small and entrepreneurial businesses. Third, my bill recognizes that the current depreciation schedules for high-tech equipment and software are out of date, given how quickly such items become obsolete in our fast-changing economy. My bill would reduce the recovery period for computers or peripheral equipment from five years to three, and for software from three years to two. This change would be permanent. Fourth, my bill would make the health insurance expenses of the self- employed fully tax deductible. Under current law, 60 percent is deductible in 2001, 70 percent in 2002, and 100 percent in 2003. My bill would speed up the 100-percent deductibility to this year. Fifth, to simplify tax filing, my bill would include the Single Point Tax Filing Act. This section would simplify the tax filing process for employers by allowing the Internal Revenue Service and State agencies to combine, on one form, both State and Federal employment tax returns. This provision has been passed by the Senate twice before, but it has not yet become law. There is currently a demonstration project along these lines in Montana, which is working very well. I believe such authority should extend to all States. Sixth, my bill would extend the existing income averaging provisions to cover fishing as well as farming. In other words, the choice to average income from a farming trade or business under present law would be extended to cover income from the trade or business of fishing as well. Under my bill, a farmer or fisherman electing to average his or her income would owe the alternative minimum tax, AMT, only to the extent he or she would have owed AMT had averaging not been elected. This is an important change that will benefit not only people in my State, but also throughout New England and in other regions of the country where fishing is an important industry. Finally, my bill would modify the tax treatment of investments in debenture small business investment companies, or SBICs, so they are less likely to create unrelated business taxable income, UBTI, liability. The current tax treatment of money borrowed from the government by a debenture SBIC creates taxable income for an otherwise tax-exempt investor, which makes it almost impossible to raise capital from these investors. Free to choose, tax-exempt investors opt to invest in venture capital funds that do not create any UBTI liability. Therefore, my bill would assure that money borrowed from the government by an SBIC does not subject tax-exempt investors to UBTI. In so doing, the bill would encourage greater investment in SBICs, which provide critically needed venture capital to emerging small businesses. These venture capital funds are sorely needed in today's stalled economy. I believe that ``The Affordable Small Business Stimulus Act of 2001'' will provide a much-needed stimulus to small business in a way that we can afford. I look forward to working with the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Finance Committee to have some or all of its provisions enacted into law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want to submit for the Record a managers' substitute amendment to S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001, which incorporates a number of improvements to the emergency relief provided by the bill as introduced. Senator Bond and I have been trying to bring this up before the full Senate, but, for almost one month since October 15, two senators have been blocking its consideration and passage. The Kerry-Bond bill is a fiscally responsible and measured response to help small businesses that are struggling because they were affected by the attacks on September 11 or because they can't get loans or venture capital from traditional private-sector lenders and investors who are pessimistic about the economy. This legislation makes loan capital and business counseling available to the small businesses in all of our States, and it does so by tailoring many of the Small Business Administration's, SBA, programs. Let me draw your attention to changes included in the managers' substitute amendment: One. For businesses located in a declared disaster area or at an airport, or for small businesses that were closed or suspended for related national security reasons by Federal mandate, they may use the disaster loan proceeds to refinance any existing business debt within the bill's loan caps. For one year after approval of such refinancing, principal payments on such refinancings will be deferred and the small business will be required to make interest only payments. Full payments will resume at the end of that year. Two. For emergency relief loans under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act, the guaranteed percentage was reduced from 95 percent to 90 percent in response to the Administration's concerns that the government's risk was too high at 95 percent. Three. The size standard applicable for travel agencies with respect to disaster loans and emergency 7(a) loans under the managers' amendment is increased from $1 million to $2 million in average annual receipts. Four. The SBA Administrator's authority to waive or increase size standards and size regulations is applied to both disaster loans and emergency 7(a) guaranteed loans. Five. In order to encourage lenders to make the emergency and regular 7(a) loans to small businesses adversely affected by the effects of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 200l, the managers' amendment reduces the on-going lenders' fee from one-half of 1 percent to one- quarter of 1 percent. Six. The requirement of non-Federal match is waived for the Women's Business Centers program with respect to individualized assistance authorized under this Act. Seven. It requires the SBA to report to the pertinent House and Senate Committees periodically on its implementation of this legislation. Eight. The managers' amendment increases the authorization levels for the 7(a) and 504 programs by $2 billion each, and for the Small Business Investment Company participating securities and debentures programs by $700 million and $200 million, respectively, to accommodate increased demand anticipated in the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Nine. In the loan term provisions for emergency 7(a) loans, a cap of $3 million was added for the ``gross amount of the loans.'' This clarifies that the other stated caps apply to the SBA-guaranteed portions of the loans. Ten. To make clear that Congress expects the SBA to implement these emergency relief provisions as quickly as possible, a section was added requiring SBA to issue interim final rules and implementing guidelines within 20 days of the date of enactment of this legislation. Eleven. Under the 7(a) stimulus loans, the managers' amendment reduces by half the upfront guarantee fee paid by the borrower, and it establishes a guarantee percentage of 85 percent on all such loans. Twelve. Under 504 stimulus loans, the managers' amendment reduces by half the annual guarantee fee paid by the borrower, currently .41 percent, and retains the upfront bank fee of 50 basis points, .50 percent. These are important changes that Senator Bond and I have worked out to make a good bill better. I am very pleased that the Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business, Congressman Don Manzullo, and Congressman Jim Moran introduced a bill identical to our managers' amendment on November 6 and appreciate their cooperation throughout this process.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to submit a resolution along with my colleague Ms. Snowe of Maine, that calls on the United States to make full use of all appropriate diplomatic mechanisms, relevant international laws and agreements, and other appropriate mechanisms to ensure international compliance with the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas, ICCAT, conservation measures for all managed species. This week a group of committed fishery managers, scientists and industry representatives began travel overseas to represent our nation at the 17th regular meeting of the ICCAT in Murcia, Spain. This multinational fishery conservation and management body of over 40 nations has a mandate to ensure the sustainability of all Atlantic fisheries for swordfish, billfish and a number of tuna species. Such multinational cooperation is necessary to effectively conserve and manage these species, which migrate widely on the high seas and through jurisdictions of many coastal Atlantic nations. Effective unilateral management of species that migrate through multiple jurisdictions is simply not possible, as was specifically recognized under the 1995 U.N. Agreement on Straddling Stocks and Highly Migratory Species. I am sad to report that many ICCAT member nations have failed to comply with basic ICCAT quota and minimum size regulations for several important species. The magnitude of these violations is so great that it could render useless all of the conservation plans that ICCAT have put in place to date. I find this very troubling, particularly given the tremendous burdens placed on U.S. fishermen to improve conservation of these species. They rightly object to being disadvantaged in the marketplace by nations who can sell fish more cheaply because their costs of compliance with the law are essentially zero. Furthermore, it is my understanding that some ICCAT member nations have undermined essential conservation plans from the outset for several ICCAT species, by simply setting a quota that is in flagrant disregard of the best advice of the scientific community. These species include bluefin tuna and swordfish. Both of these species are extremely important to fishermen along the East Coast. As I stated earlier compliance to basic conservation measures is absolutely essential to rebuilding our highly valuable stocks of swordfish and tuna. American fishermen have made great sacrifices for the conservation of bluefin tuna and swordfish in order to rebuild these stocks to their maximum sustainable yield. Nothing infuriates law-abiding U.S. fishermen more than having their future conservation gains squandered by nations that openly flout ICCAT's scientifically- based conservation standards. This simply cannot continue. I strongly urge the U.S. delegation to this year's ICCAT to demand full compliance with all conservation measures, including sound, scientifically based quotas for all managed species. We have learned the hard way that the alternative to pro-active conservation is overfished and depleted stocks. These impacts go beyond financial costs to the fishing industry, and can place severe strains on local communities, national economies, and critical food supply chains. I do not need to remind you, of the devastating impacts overfishing caused in New England. In the 1980s our fishermen, like those of many ICCAT nations do today, believed that our oceans contained unlimited amounts of cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder. But by the early 1990s our stocks crashed causing severe economic harm to fishermen and their coastal communities. U.S. fishermen know firsthand what a fishery crash will mean and they are more than willing to do their part to ensure the same fate does not befall our international fisheries. The truth of the matter is, without compliance by all of ICCAT member nations, rebuilding these species is a sisyphean feat, an endless uphill battle. The U.S. cannot lift this boulder alone, we are but a small component of the total fishery. Sound, pro-active conservation works, one need only look at Georges Bank today and see how far we have come with cod, haddock and yellowtail flounder. The truth, is that the fishermen of the United States cannot carry the conservation load by themselves for highly migratory species. But even here in the United States we have shown that it is possible to revive multi-jurisdictional species through coordinated but mandatory conservation measures, the Atlantic states worked together to bring striped bass back from the edge, and the resulting striped bass population has exceeded all expectations. We must ensure that this is a model we successfully export to other nations, and ICCAT is the place we need to do it. The U.S. must demand from our fellow ICCAT members what we already demand from ourselves: use the best science when setting quotas and comply with quotas once they have been set. It is a simple rule, and it works.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is a privilege for me today to honor and celebrate one of Massachusetts' most esteemed public servants, Mayor Peter Torigian of Peabody. After 23 years, the dean of Massachusetts mayors is retiring from public office but hopefully not from public life. The city of Peabody is known as the ``Tanner City'' for its leather trade dating back to the 1630s, and therefore it is only appropriate that this former leather worker and leather-neck has led Peabody with vigilance, compassion, and integrity for over two decades. Peter's ascent to city hall began in a ``three decker'' in the heart of Peabody's industrial sector. Born to hard-working Armenian immigrants, Peter was studious and gifted, as well as the star quarterback for the Peabody High School football team. After school, the future mayor worked as a tanner and experienced first-hand the leather factories that were once the life-line of Peabody's industrial economy. He then put in 3 years of his life to the service of the U.S. Marine Corps before returning home to Peabody. As all of us in this body know: Once a Marine, always a Marine. He spent 16 years as a letter carrier for the U.S. Post Office. In a harbinger of things to come he quietly rose through the ranks to presidency of the union local. Then began his formal public career with his election to the city council in 1968--a tumultuous year in the history of our country--and culminated with his election as mayor in 1979. The longest-serving mayor in Peabody history, his legacy will not be counted just in years but in the progress the city has enjoyed during his tenure. His peers throughout the state honored him with the title of ``Best Municipal Executive'' in a survey conducted by the Boston Globe, and his management expertise continues to be widely solicited. With an instinctual gift for sharing his knowledge and experience, he was recently appointed to the MBTA Advisory Board, elected as a member to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and has served as chairman of the Essex County Advisory Board since 1983. The Massachusetts Municipal Association benefited from his service on its board of directors as well as the Local Governors Advisory Committee, which he started serving on in 1983. The honors and citations, if stacked, reach to the sky; honored by the AARP in 1998, Peabody's Veterans Council in that same year, and honored by the Anti-Defamation League the year before. His housing efforts won the acclaim of the Citizens for Adequate Housing Community Service Award at the beginning of the 1990s, he was the North Shore Chamber of Commerce's ``Man of the Year,'' in 1991, and was honored by the President of Portugal with ``Command of the Special Order of Infant Henry the Navigator'' award in 1996. Every public official is ultimately judged by the impact their policies have after the official has left office. In this way, generations of Peabody's children will be Peter's legacy, since thousands of children went through Peabody public schools during Mayor Torigian's time, and now their children are doing the same. The business growth in Peabody during Peter's term stands in stark contrast to the aged and fading industrial based that he inherited, and now the residents enjoy a robust economic climate while at the same time maintaining the New England flavor of the community. I am honored to rise today to pay tribute to a remarkable man who has assembled an inspiring and very real list of achievements. I regard myself as fortunate to have him as a friend and colleague in government, and I join the families of Peabody and his peers throughout the State in celebrating his exemplary public service and in wishing him godspeed as he moves on to new horizons.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while I will support the fiscal year 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies conference report, I must express my strong disappointment in the funding level included in the bill for YouthBuild. I strongly believe that YouthBuild proves that the Federal Government, working in cooperation with community-based non-profits, can make a real difference in the lives of young people, the young people that most Americans have given up on. During Senate consideration of the VA-HUD appropriations bill, I successfully included an amendment to provide a $10 million increase in funding for YouthBuild. A similar amendment was included in the House, so the amount allocated to YouthBuild was approximately $70 million in each bill. While I understand the difficult allocation which the Subcommittee operates, I am nevertheless very disappointed that in the Conference Report included only $65 million for YouthBuild. With strong support for YouthBuild in both the House and the Senate, I believe this program deserved $70 million in fiscal year 2002. These additional funds would have assisted YouthBuild in expanding its programs across the nation and assisted more at-risk youths. YouthBuild is designed to serve those that, too often, have proven to be the hardest to serve. In return, they serve us, by getting job training, learning a skill, completing their educations, and working in communities across the country rebuilding housing, providing desperately needed affordable housing to other needy families. Many low-income young adults are having great difficulty achieving success in our society. YouthBuild attracts low-income young adults who have dropped out of school. Many participants have been adjudicated, are from welfare families, have children already and live in public housing projects. The premise of YouthBuild is that these young adults need and deserve a second chance, that they are eager to live productive, constructive lives, and we cannot afford not to provide them with that second chance. Skills, education, inspiration and support provided by YouthBuild help them make the transition to the jobs or higher education. YouthBuild is the only national program that provides young adults an immediately productive role in the community while at the same time providing all of the following benefits to participants: basic education toward a diploma; skills training toward a decent paying job; leadership development toward civic engagement; adult mentoring to help overcome personal problems; and participation in a supportive mini- community with a positive set of values. Of those that enter YouthBuild, 67 percent complete the program. 85 percent of YouthBuild graduates are placed in college, or get a job with an average wage of $7.53 per hour. Many become leaders in their communities, both while they are in the program and thereafter. YouthBuild receives bipartisan support for one simple reason--it works. The program fills a major gap in public policy by addressing the needs of at-risk, out of school young adults in a more comprehensive way than any other existing national program. That is why I circulated a letter with Senator Mike DeWine, which was cosigned by 63 Senators, in support of increasing funding for YouthBuild to $90 million. YouthBuild program has grown from 15 sites which served 600 at-risk youth in 1993, to 145 sites serving approximately 5,800 youth in 40 States today. The engine of this growth has been the HUD appropriation. The fuel has been the highly motivated local leaders whose commitment keeps the program on the cutting edge of community needs. They have raised State, local, and private funds to supplement Federal funds and extend the reach of this important program. Major support from the Ford Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, The DeWitt Wallace- Reader's Digest Fund, local Rotary Clubs, The Home Depot, US Bancorp, and Metropolitan Life Insurance Company demonstrates that the network is highly regarded by leaders in the private sector. YouthBuild attracts, motivates, educates, and trains precisely the young people who have fared least well in virtually all other existing systems. The demand and need for YouthBuild programs far exceeds the resources allocated to it. Successful YouthBuild programs have 6 to 10 times more applicants each year than they can accept. In this period, with the economy in need of qualified workers and the number of at-risk adults is increasing, it is excellent public policy to invest in a proven national model that can bring these young adults into employment, post- secondary education, and constructive civic engagement. The best way for me to explain to you the importance of YouthBuild is to tell you about one the YouthBuild programs. YouthBuild Springfield, MA, has received more than 250 applications for its services since it opened in 1999, and has been able to serve 80 young people in a comprehensive, year round programs which includes education and employment training, as well as community and leadership development. Over half of the participants are young women, many with dependent children. All of the participants commit to being drug free, participate in weekly drug education workshops, and agree to random drug testing. They provide four therapy groups each week and access private therapy as needed. They have maintained a 77 percent retention rate, 86 percent attendance rate, and 82 percent placement rate at an average wage of $8.10 per hour. Another 10 percent have gone on to further training or college. With the strong bipartisan support for YouthBuild, I am hopeful that we will be able to increase the appropriation for this important program in fiscal year 2003.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is a special honor for me to celebrate one of Massachusetts' most famous citizens and one of America's most famous chefs, Mrs. Julia Child. For over 40 years she has brightened our lives with recipes, books, and television shows that have broadened our palettes as well as our understanding of the world and on November 7 her peers will gather to honor her invaluable contributions to her craft. I am proud to join so many of Greater Boston's restaurants in celebrating this remarkable career at this and the many other events planned to recognize a uniquely American journey. Over the past four decades, Julia revolutionized the way America cooks and eats, expanding and elevating the sophistication of the American appetite. Her influence can be seen in the bookstores of the country, where dining and cooking sections have grown to compete with history and commerce, and on the television, where cooking shows have proliferated and now present and celebrate traditions from all over the world. Julia is widely credited with exposing the American kitchen to the tastes, practices and history of international cooking, with specific focus on France. Her television shows, all of which were peppered with spontaneity, the occasional gaffe and her radiant personality, made cooking fun and accessible. She loved the basic mechanics of the kitchen, the how and why behind each step. Somehow, in its entirety, her career struck that elusive balance between removing the mystery of international cuisine while still celebrating its mystique. For those who know Julia, who understand the steel and the intellect of this magnificent woman, it will come as no surprise that she made substantive contributions to American life even before she found fame in America's kitchens. After graduating Smith College and volunteering at the Red Cross, she joined the CIA's precursor, the Office of Strategic Services, OSS, and served throughout the World War II. When the OSS announced the need for volunteers to staff offices overseas, Julia was thrilled by the prospect of serving her country in a higher capacity. Her work in America's first intelligence agency took her to Ceylon, now Sri Lanka, India and China. Like so much else in her pioneering career, Julia was one of the first women to contribute to the war's intelligence effort in such an active position, earning promotions and accolades in what was very much a male-dominated agency. After the war, Julia and her husband, Paul, moved to Paris where he joined the U.S. Information Service. It was in the famed gourmet restaurants along the Seine that Julia developed her insatiable love of French cuisine. Inspired by the simple yet majestic culinary creations found across the Atlantic, French cooking soon became Julia's obsession. Determined as ever, she entered the prestigious Corden Bleu cooking school, again as the lone woman. Just six years out of culinary school, Julia and three fellow expatriates founded the ``L'ecole des Trois Gourmandes,'' a school of the culinary arts in Paris. Ten years after her first taste of souffle Julia published with two other chefs what is still the most thorough and comprehensive French cooking manual brought to the States, ``Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Volume I.'' In this book, which has since become a classic, Julia made the complex and unpronounceable cuisine accessible and appealing to mainstream America, forever changing how America approaches cooking, dining and entertaining. After the publication of Volume I, Julia returned to America and commenced one of the most fruitful television careers in history. ``The French Chef,'' a show that began with Julia using her own hot plate and frying pan in a news studio at WGBH in Boston, became one of the longest running television shows in history. As a deeper testament to her commitment to the public good, Child donated her whole salary to public broadcasting in order to help fund future public television endeavors. Julia donned the apron in seven other television cooking shows, including Dinner at Julia's and The Master Chef Series. She has won several Emmy Awards and just last year was elected to the French Legion of Honor, an extremely prestigious honor awarded by the French Government. Characteristically, Julia has used her success to forge many philanthropic efforts and broaden global understanding, including the American Institute of Wine and Food and the Julia Child Circle. This month Julia is moving to California after devoting more than four decades to her profession. She has changed forever the way we will cook and eat in America, she upheld the highest standards of professionalism and generosity throughout her career, and wrote an indelible chapter in the progress of women in our society. Her cheer and wit will be greatly missed on our television sets but the knowledge and insight she served will remain in our kitchens for a long time to come. I honor her to say, and I wish her the best of luck as she begins this new chapter in her life by borrowing the phrase that she not only concluded every show with, but also added into the popular American lexicon--Bon Apetit!

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill along with my senior Senator, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, to amend the National Trails System Act to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending through western Massachusetts and central Connecticut as a national historic trail. The National Trails System was created in 1968 to provide outdoor recreation and to conserve the scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities of the areas through which trails more than 100 miles long pass. Trails provide opportunities for outdoor recreation to citizens in Massachusetts and around the country. People enjoy bicycling, cross- country skiing, day hiking, jogging, camping, and long-distance backpacking. In addition, National Scenic Trails promote tourism and foster economic development. National trails can only be authorized and designated by Acts of Congress. The Metacomet-Monadnock-Matta- besett Trail plays an important role in land protection and wildlife habitat preservation. It is a system of trails and potential trails extending southward approximately 180 miles from the Metacomet- Monadnock Trail in western Massachusetts, across central Connecticut on the Metacomet Trail and the Mattabesett Trail, and ending at Long Island Sound. Dozens of waterfalls, natural areas, and wildlife viewing spots can be found along the route. There are dramatic traprock ledges and summits that provide tremendous views of the Connecticut River Valley. At a time when the Northeast corridor is faced with overdevelopment, designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett as a national trail would help protect it, facilitate better planning for power lines, pipelines, and roads, and help maintain natural habitats through the financial and technological assistance of the National Park Service, nonprofit organizations, and local volunteers. I would like to share a few of the comments from organizations in Massachusetts and Connecticut that support this legislation. Peter Westover, the conservation director for the town of Amherst, wrote to express strong support for the trail. He is confident that there will be widespread support among trail managers and trail users throughout the region. Both Durand, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, wrote that the Metacomet-Monadnock portion of the trail is an important recreational, scenic, and historic resource that could be significantly enhanced by this project. The Massachusetts director of the Nature Conservancy, Wayne Klockner, expressed his strong support for the trail, writing that he supports the benefits that designation can bring to a fragile area and that he looks forward to increased land protection, funding and technical expertise. From Connecticut, Leslie Kane, chairman of the Guilford Land Acquisition Committee, supports the trail because it will preserve Connecticut's natural heritage for all people to enjoy. These comments represent only a handful of the letters of support that my colleagues and I have received. Establishing a new national scenic trail is typically a four-step process, which, on average, can take 10 years to complete. In 10 years, given the rapid development in the Northeast, entire landscapes and habitats can change and become endangered. The first step in the process to establish a new national trail is amending the National Trails System Act to allow for a feasibility study. Senator Kennedy and I are asking today that we take that first step and get started protecting the natural heritage of this small part of New England.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce a bill along with my senior Senator, Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts, to amend the National Trails System Act to conduct a study on the feasibility of designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett Trail extending through western Massachusetts and central Connecticut as a national historic trail. The National Trails System was created in 1968 to provide outdoor recreation and to conserve the scenic, historic, natural, and cultural qualities of the areas through which trails more than 100 miles long pass. Trails provide opportunities for outdoor recreation to citizens in Massachusetts and around the country. People enjoy bicycling, cross- country skiing, day hiking, jogging, camping, and long-distance backpacking. In addition, National Scenic Trails promote tourism and foster economic development. National trails can only be authorized and designated by Acts of Congress. The Metacomet-Monadnock-Matta- besett Trail plays an important role in land protection and wildlife habitat preservation. It is a system of trails and potential trails extending southward approximately 180 miles from the Metacomet- Monadnock Trail in western Massachusetts, across central Connecticut on the Metacomet Trail and the Mattabesett Trail, and ending at Long Island Sound. Dozens of waterfalls, natural areas, and wildlife viewing spots can be found along the route. There are dramatic traprock ledges and summits that provide tremendous views of the Connecticut River Valley. At a time when the Northeast corridor is faced with overdevelopment, designating the Metacomet-Monadnock-Mattabesett as a national trail would help protect it, facilitate better planning for power lines, pipelines, and roads, and help maintain natural habitats through the financial and technological assistance of the National Park Service, nonprofit organizations, and local volunteers. I would like to share a few of the comments from organizations in Massachusetts and Connecticut that support this legislation. Peter Westover, the conservation director for the town of Amherst, wrote to express strong support for the trail. He is confident that there will be widespread support among trail managers and trail users throughout the region. Both Durand, the Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs, wrote that the Metacomet-Monadnock portion of the trail is an important recreational, scenic, and historic resource that could be significantly enhanced by this project. The Massachusetts director of the Nature Conservancy, Wayne Klockner, expressed his strong support for the trail, writing that he supports the benefits that designation can bring to a fragile area and that he looks forward to increased land protection, funding and technical expertise. From Connecticut, Leslie Kane, chairman of the Guilford Land Acquisition Committee, supports the trail because it will preserve Connecticut's natural heritage for all people to enjoy. These comments represent only a handful of the letters of support that my colleagues and I have received. Establishing a new national scenic trail is typically a four-step process, which, on average, can take 10 years to complete. In 10 years, given the rapid development in the Northeast, entire landscapes and habitats can change and become endangered. The first step in the process to establish a new national trail is amending the National Trails System Act to allow for a feasibility study. Senator Kennedy and I are asking today that we take that first step and get started protecting the natural heritage of this small part of New England.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce legislation to identify and reduce maritime threats from criminal or terrorist action, particularly those originating from foreign ports and vessels. I am particularly pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee Mr. Hollings of South Carolina and the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Mr. Breaux of Louisiana. Senator Breaux and I recently held oversight hearings before our respective Subcommittees on the Coast Guard and its role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators Hollings and Breaux well know, even before September 11 our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. Senator Hollings had already recognized the need to rectify these deficiencies and authored S. 1214, the Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act, which was reported out of the Committee in August, and which I am proud to cosponsor. However, the attacks on New York and Washington made it clear we need to go farther afield to guard against terrorism and other crimes. Today's legislation is intended to supplement the security provisions of S. 1214 by improving our ability to detect and prevent maritime terrorism and crime before it has the chance to sail into U.S. ports. We intend to work with Committee members to ensure these provisions are included in the final bill the Senate sends to the House. At our October 11 oversight hearing, Coast Guard Commandant James Loy and other witnesses gave some thoughtful testimony that is the backbone of this legislation. The hearing also brought to light the challenges presented to the Coast Guard in securing our maritime border from such threats. In addition to introducing this legislation, we also will address glaring Coast Guard resource shortfalls through increased authorizations in our FY 2002 Coast Guard authorization bill, which we will bring to the floor shortly. The Port Threat and Security Act is focused on giving the Coast Guard the tools and the information they need to do the job right. First, we need to improve our base of information to identify bad actors throughout the maritime realm. This legislation would help us identify those nations whose vessels and vessel registration procedures pose potential threats to our national security. It would require the Secretaries of Transportation and State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists. Mr. President, this is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998 one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To that end, the bill requires the Administration to report on actions they have taken, or would recommend, to close these loopholes and improve transparency and registration procedures, either through domestic or international action--including action at the International Maritime Organization. My legislation would also establish a national Sea Marshal program to protect our ports from the potential use of vessels as weapons of terror. A Sea Marshal program was recently established in San Francisco, and is supported strongly by the maritime pilots who, like airline pilots, are on the front lines in bringing vessels into U.S. ports. Sea Marshals would be used in ports that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack. The Coast Guard took a number of steps including using armed Coast Guard personnel to escort a Liquid Natural Gas, LNG, tanker into Boston last evening. This was the first delivery of LNG to Boston since September 11 and a number of people were concerned about the safety of bringing LNG into the port. Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as Sea Marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea Marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. The Secretary of Transportation would be responsible for establishing qualifications and standards for Sea Marshals which could be comprised of Federal, State or local law enforcement officials. This legislation also aims to make use of unarmed pilots as yet another way to combat terrorism in our ports. Nearly every vessel that enters a U.S. port is first boarded by a sea pilot to assist the crew in navigating the harbor. Many times these pilots are the first set of U.S. eyes on vessels that may be headed to our ports bearing criminals or contraband from overseas. They are our eyes and ears, but cannot be expected to be a line of physical defense, that is the job of the Sea Marshals. This legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to use these ``eyes and ears'' effectively in the war on terror. The Secretary is directed to investigate discrete ways in which sea pilots can provide information to warn of a possible terrorist attack or other crime. It is important that we explore secure mechanisms to allow these pilots to contribute to our maritime domain awareness, including notifying law enforcement officials of suspicious activity on a vessel. I am convinced there are a number of ways that these pilots could safely provide the authorities with information that can thwart illegal activities without alerting the vessel's captain or crew, or potential terrorists. This legislation would also require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 25 foreign port vulnerability assessments each year, and places on foreign ports the same reporting and assessment requirements we use for foreign airports. This is essential to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from harm in foreign ports, and are informed about any risks before leaving U.S. soil. It is also absolutely necessary to use foreign ports as our first defense against threats to U.S. ports. We cannot expect to protect U.S. borders by erecting a fence only at our own ports. As one of our witnesses said, ``the leading edge of our boundary for homeland defense is, in fact, foreign ports.'' In many instances, such defenses would be fruitless because of the sheer volume of cargo that passes through our ports daily. We need advance warning long before these vessels appear at our harbor entrances. Critical information that can help the Coast Guard identify these risks can only be collected at foreign ports where cargo and persons are first placed aboard the vessel. Despite this obvious need, we have fallen behind on our assessments of foreign ports. I firmly believe that the only way we can make U.S. ports and harbors safe is by going to the source and ensuring appropriate measures and facilities are in place to guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens visiting foreign ports as well as the safety of cargo bound for the United States. In order to pay for these inspections this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to collect a 50 cent user fee on all cruise passengers that depart the United States for a foreign port. Quite frankly, 50 cents is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that a port vulnerability assessment has been completed prior to a cruise ship with as many as 5,000 U.S. citizens as passengers, docks in a particular country. U.S. citizens should not be disembarking in ports that have not been scrutinized for security violations. One witness pointed out that in many circumstances U.S. cruise ship passengers are passing through ports that could not be assessed because they were deemed too dangerous for military personnel! This is ludicrous. I am sure those passengers had no idea of this potential danger, and we need to make sure that they are both safe and informed. Lastly, this legislation would allow the President to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from entering the United States if the vessel has embarked passengers or cargo from foreign ports that do not have adequate security measures as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Recently inspectors in Italy checking a container bound for Canada discovered a member of the al-Qaida terrorist organization hiding in a shipping container equipped with a bed and makeshift bathroom. The suspect, an Egyptian in a business suit, had with him a Canadian passport, a laptop computer, two cell phones, airport maps, security passes for airports in three countries and a certificate proclaiming him an airplane mechanic. We cannot allow any country to have such poor security such that terrorists can stow away in a shipping container. I would like to remind everyone that a similar provision exists in the airline industry and I see no reason why the President should not have the power to suspend commerce from a port with inadequate security, just like he can now do with international airports. I believe that these provisions, when combined with the strong port security program of S. 1214, will ensure that the United States has the tools, the information, and the personnel to guard against waterborne threats to our nation and our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce legislation to identify and reduce maritime threats from criminal or terrorist action, particularly those originating from foreign ports and vessels. I am particularly pleased to be joined by the Chairman of the Commerce Committee Mr. Hollings of South Carolina and the Chairman of the Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine Subcommittee Mr. Breaux of Louisiana. Senator Breaux and I recently held oversight hearings before our respective Subcommittees on the Coast Guard and its role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators Hollings and Breaux well know, even before September 11 our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. Senator Hollings had already recognized the need to rectify these deficiencies and authored S. 1214, the Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act, which was reported out of the Committee in August, and which I am proud to cosponsor. However, the attacks on New York and Washington made it clear we need to go farther afield to guard against terrorism and other crimes. Today's legislation is intended to supplement the security provisions of S. 1214 by improving our ability to detect and prevent maritime terrorism and crime before it has the chance to sail into U.S. ports. We intend to work with Committee members to ensure these provisions are included in the final bill the Senate sends to the House. At our October 11 oversight hearing, Coast Guard Commandant James Loy and other witnesses gave some thoughtful testimony that is the backbone of this legislation. The hearing also brought to light the challenges presented to the Coast Guard in securing our maritime border from such threats. In addition to introducing this legislation, we also will address glaring Coast Guard resource shortfalls through increased authorizations in our FY 2002 Coast Guard authorization bill, which we will bring to the floor shortly. The Port Threat and Security Act is focused on giving the Coast Guard the tools and the information they need to do the job right. First, we need to improve our base of information to identify bad actors throughout the maritime realm. This legislation would help us identify those nations whose vessels and vessel registration procedures pose potential threats to our national security. It would require the Secretaries of Transportation and State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists. Mr. President, this is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998 one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To that end, the bill requires the Administration to report on actions they have taken, or would recommend, to close these loopholes and improve transparency and registration procedures, either through domestic or international action--including action at the International Maritime Organization. My legislation would also establish a national Sea Marshal program to protect our ports from the potential use of vessels as weapons of terror. A Sea Marshal program was recently established in San Francisco, and is supported strongly by the maritime pilots who, like airline pilots, are on the front lines in bringing vessels into U.S. ports. Sea Marshals would be used in ports that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack. The Coast Guard took a number of steps including using armed Coast Guard personnel to escort a Liquid Natural Gas, LNG, tanker into Boston last evening. This was the first delivery of LNG to Boston since September 11 and a number of people were concerned about the safety of bringing LNG into the port. Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as Sea Marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea Marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. The Secretary of Transportation would be responsible for establishing qualifications and standards for Sea Marshals which could be comprised of Federal, State or local law enforcement officials. This legislation also aims to make use of unarmed pilots as yet another way to combat terrorism in our ports. Nearly every vessel that enters a U.S. port is first boarded by a sea pilot to assist the crew in navigating the harbor. Many times these pilots are the first set of U.S. eyes on vessels that may be headed to our ports bearing criminals or contraband from overseas. They are our eyes and ears, but cannot be expected to be a line of physical defense, that is the job of the Sea Marshals. This legislation would require the Secretary of Transportation to use these ``eyes and ears'' effectively in the war on terror. The Secretary is directed to investigate discrete ways in which sea pilots can provide information to warn of a possible terrorist attack or other crime. It is important that we explore secure mechanisms to allow these pilots to contribute to our maritime domain awareness, including notifying law enforcement officials of suspicious activity on a vessel. I am convinced there are a number of ways that these pilots could safely provide the authorities with information that can thwart illegal activities without alerting the vessel's captain or crew, or potential terrorists. This legislation would also require the Secretary of Transportation to conduct 25 foreign port vulnerability assessments each year, and places on foreign ports the same reporting and assessment requirements we use for foreign airports. This is essential to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from harm in foreign ports, and are informed about any risks before leaving U.S. soil. It is also absolutely necessary to use foreign ports as our first defense against threats to U.S. ports. We cannot expect to protect U.S. borders by erecting a fence only at our own ports. As one of our witnesses said, ``the leading edge of our boundary for homeland defense is, in fact, foreign ports.'' In many instances, such defenses would be fruitless because of the sheer volume of cargo that passes through our ports daily. We need advance warning long before these vessels appear at our harbor entrances. Critical information that can help the Coast Guard identify these risks can only be collected at foreign ports where cargo and persons are first placed aboard the vessel. Despite this obvious need, we have fallen behind on our assessments of foreign ports. I firmly believe that the only way we can make U.S. ports and harbors safe is by going to the source and ensuring appropriate measures and facilities are in place to guarantee the safety of U.S. citizens visiting foreign ports as well as the safety of cargo bound for the United States. In order to pay for these inspections this legislation authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to collect a 50 cent user fee on all cruise passengers that depart the United States for a foreign port. Quite frankly, 50 cents is a small price to pay for the peace of mind that comes with knowing that a port vulnerability assessment has been completed prior to a cruise ship with as many as 5,000 U.S. citizens as passengers, docks in a particular country. U.S. citizens should not be disembarking in ports that have not been scrutinized for security violations. One witness pointed out that in many circumstances U.S. cruise ship passengers are passing through ports that could not be assessed because they were deemed too dangerous for military personnel! This is ludicrous. I am sure those passengers had no idea of this potential danger, and we need to make sure that they are both safe and informed. Lastly, this legislation would allow the President to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from entering the United States if the vessel has embarked passengers or cargo from foreign ports that do not have adequate security measures as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. Recently inspectors in Italy checking a container bound for Canada discovered a member of the al-Qaida terrorist organization hiding in a shipping container equipped with a bed and makeshift bathroom. The suspect, an Egyptian in a business suit, had with him a Canadian passport, a laptop computer, two cell phones, airport maps, security passes for airports in three countries and a certificate proclaiming him an airplane mechanic. We cannot allow any country to have such poor security such that terrorists can stow away in a shipping container. I would like to remind everyone that a similar provision exists in the airline industry and I see no reason why the President should not have the power to suspend commerce from a port with inadequate security, just like he can now do with international airports. I believe that these provisions, when combined with the strong port security program of S. 1214, will ensure that the United States has the tools, the information, and the personnel to guard against waterborne threats to our nation and our citizens. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I honor one of the most fervent advocates for the labor movement and working families across the country; Mr. Paul Dufault. For the past 45 years, Paul has served the men and women of New England as an active member, secretary-treasurer and later as president of the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445. Despite a changing economy and an evolving workforce, Paul's vision and motivation remained strong and unwavering for almost half a century. I am proud to extend to him my warmest appreciation for his steadfast commitment to economic prosperity for all individuals and families. Paul began his career in labor advocacy as a part-time employee at Stop and Shop Supermarket, where he became a member of the Retail Clerks Union Local 1445 in 1956. Four years later, when Local 826 of Worcester acquired the Worcester jurisdiction from Local 1445, Paul was brought on as an organizer. Paul's strong work ethic and potential did not go unnoticed an this was reflected in his promotion to business agent. This was followed in 1967 with an appointment to International Representative. Paul then advanced in 1971 to president of Local 1435. With the merger of the Retail Clerks International Union and the Amalgamated Meat Cutters and Butcher Workmen in 1976, Local 1435 merged with Local 1445 and Paul stepped into the position of secretary- treasurer. In 1996, Paul was elected president of United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1445 of Boston, MA. More than 3,000 new Local 1445 members were organized in the last three years, resulting in Local 1445 becoming the largest UFCW local in New England. Paul's leadership has resulted in improved benefits and working conditions for members. Local 1445 is indebted to Paul and all he has done for the working men and women of New England and I join them in thanking Paul for his contribution to the labor movement over the last 45 years. In addition to Paul's accomplishments in Local 1445, Paul was also vice president of the Massachusetts AFL-CIO and served as chairman of the UFCW Interstate Health & Welfare fund, where he had been a trustee since 1971. He contributed his expertise in labor issues to the Gloucester Seafood Workers Pension and Health Welfare fund as a trustee, and served as an alternate on the UFCW National Pension Fund, as well. Mr. President, I am truly grateful to join families across Massachusetts and throughout the country in celebrating Paul's career and contributions. I wish he and Judy, as well as his four children and seven grandchildren, the very best as they begin this new chapter in their lives.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is Thursday of almost the fifth or sixth week since September 11. We still have not passed aviation security in the U.S. Congress. I cannot impress upon my colleagues enough how much I hear from aviation personnel, from law enforcement personnel, and from people throughout our country, how we are beginning to press the line of irresponsibility in our not having moved on this. There is a reason our economy is still hurting. There are many reasons. None of them are going to be solved by any one single component. We understand that. We began September with a huge overhang in the telecommunications industry. All of us knew the stocks in the marketplace were significantly overvalued. There was almost a decline taking place prior to September 11. But we have a responsibility to do everything in our power to begin to turn the economy around and to protect a lot of our citizens who are beginning to feel a lot of economic pain. One of the principal ways we can do that is in the stimulus package itself, as well as in passing aviation security. I have heard some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle in the House suggest publicly that one of the reasons they don't want to pass the aviation federalization is because some of these folks may be in a union; they may join a union. Are we really so far away already from the events of September 11 that people around here have forgotten that the firemen and the police officers and a lot of the medical technicians and other folks who lost their lives on September 11 were members of a union? We do an extraordinary insult to that event and to what has happened since by having ideology and politics suddenly come back to prevent us from doing something that almost every person in the industry accepts is the best way to provide the highest level of security to the American people. I respectfully suggest the best way we can provide a stimulus to this country is not by turning around and putting $1.4 billion into the coffers of IBM and billions more dollars into the coffers of a whole host of energy companies and other large corporations--not because they are bad, not because we think they don't deserve help in some way or another, they have received a lot of it, but because a stimulus package is supposed to do the most you can not to reward past investments or make up for past mistakes but put money, cash, into the hands of Americans now, to create jobs now in order to turn the economy around. What we have staring us in the face is a whole set of requirements to make our post offices more secure, to make our trains more secure, to make our airlines more secure, to make countless of numbers of components of our health system more capable of responding to the potential of disease. When all of these security needs are staring us in our face, there ought to be a stimulus package that is security- oriented, that has some spending in it that puts people to work now at those tasks we know we have to embrace. To see this package that came out of the House of Representatives with its extraordinary amount of giveaway, I find it an insult to the purpose of the Congress, to the weight of this moment of history, and to the obligation that we all have to bring security to our country and jobs to our citizens. I hope we are going to do a better job in the course of the next weeks. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the conference report before the Senate today. It reflects an enormous amount of hard work by the members of the Senate Banking Committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee. I congratulate them and thank them for that work. I particularly thank Senator Daschle, Senator Leahy, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Hatch, and Senator Levin for their work in developing this legislation. I am pleased the Conference Report includes what I consider to be a very important provision regarding money laundering that has been hard fought over and, frankly, long awaited for. We have been working on this for quite a few years, almost 10 years or more when I was a member of the Banking Committee and within the Foreign Relations Committee where I was Chairman of the Subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations. This really is the culmination of much of that work. I am pleased at the compromise we have reached on the antiterrorism legislation, as a whole, which includes the sunset provision on the wiretapping and electronic surveillance component. It has been a source of considerable concern for people, and I think the sunset provision provides Congress a chance to come back and measure the record appropriately, and that is appropriate. The reason I think the money-laundering provision is so important is it permits the United States--it really authorizes and gives to the Secretary of the Treasury the power to be able to enforce the interests of the United States. It allows the Secretary to deny banks and jurisdictions access to our economy if in the last measure they are not cooperative in other ways to prevent money laundering from being a tool available to terrorists. This is a bill I introduced several years ago that assists our ability to be able to crack down on the capacity for criminal elements, not just terrorists, who are criminals themselves. But also narcotics traffickers, arms proliferators, people who traffic in people themselves. There are all kinds of criminal enterprises which benefit from access to the American financial system. All of these will now be on notice that our law enforcement community has additional tools to use to be able to close the incredible benefits of access to the American financial marketplace. The global volume of laundered money staggers the imagination. It is estimated to be 2 to 5 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States. That is $600 billion to $1.5 trillion that is laundered, that comes into the country or passes through banks without accountability. Those funds escape the tax system, for one thing. So for legitimate governments struggling to fairly distribute the tax base while the average citizen who gets their paycheck deducted or those good corporate citizens and others who live by the rules, they are literally being required to assume a greater burden because other people using the laundering and lack of accountability escape that responsibility. The effects of money laundering go far beyond the parameters of law enforcement, creating international political issues and generating very genuine domestic political crises. International criminals have taken advantage of the technology and the weak financial supervision in many jurisdictions to simply smuggle their funds into our system. Globalization and advances in communications and technologies have allowed them to move their illicit gains with much more secrecy, much faster, commingled, and in other ways that avoid or complicate significantly the ability of prosecutors to be able to do their job. Many nations, some of them remote, small islands that have no real assets of their own, have passed laws solely for the purpose of attracting capital illicitly, as well as legally. By having the legal capital that is attracted by virtue of the haven that is created, they provide the cover for all of the illicit money. There are places not so far away from us, islands in the Caribbean and elsewhere, which at last count I remember $400 billion of assets that supposedly belong to this island in about 1 square mile of the downtown area, most of which was the property of entities that had a brass plate on a door and a fax machine inside, perhaps a telephone number, and that was sort of the full extent of the corporate entity. So there is $400 billion on an island that everybody knows is not on the island. Where does it go? It goes back into the financial marketplace where it earns interest, is invested, goes into legitimate efforts, much of it legitimate money to begin with but a whole portion of it not. I might add, with the knowledge of people involved in those businesses and many of the banks that receive it. So if one is going to cope with an al-Qaida, with a terrorist entity such as Osama bin Laden, who moves his money into this legitimate marketplace, law enforcement has to have the ability to be able to hold people accountable where it is legitimate to do so. Now obviously we do not want to do that where there is a legitimate enterprise, and we do not want to create a crossing of the line of the corporate veil that has been protected for a long period of time, and I am not urging that we do that. But we do have to have a system in place, where probable cause exists, for law enforcement entities. I spent a number of years as a prosecutor. We make pretty good judgments in the law enforcement community about probable cause. They are not always without question, and they are not, obviously, without error at times. We understand that. We have a pretty good system in the United States to protect against that. What we are trying to do with this legislation is to put those protections in place, but even as we put in a series of steps that allow the Secretary of the Treasury to be able to target a particular area as a known money-laundering problem, and then be able to require of the government of that entity, a cooperative effort. It is only if the entity or government's cooperative effort at several different stages is not forthcoming that the Secretary would ultimately consider exercising the power to denying that entity as a whole, or individual banks or other financial institutions, access to our financial marketplace and to its benefits. I believe this leverage will be critical in our ability to wage a war on terrorism, as well as to be able to wage a sufficient law enforcement effort against the criminal enterprises that exist on a global basis. I think the Secretary will have a number of different options and it will provide a transparency and an accountability that is absent today. Let me comment on one criticism that is often raised by some opponents of this legislation who do not like the idea that the United States should somehow put in place sanctions against an entity that has a lower tax rate than we happen to have. I emphasize there is nothing in this legislation that empowers us to take action because another government has a lower tax rate. That is their privilege. It is healthy, as all Members know, to have competition in the marketplace of taxes, too. The Chair is a former Governor and he knows well the competition between States. States will say: We will not have a sales tax; we will not have an excise tax; we will try to make ourselves more business friendly. We want to be as competitive and as low tax as we conceivably can be. We are not seeking to try to address those jurisdictions that simply make themselves more competitive on a tax basis. What we are trying to address are those jurisdictions that not only have lower taxes but use the lower taxes, coupled with a complete absence of accountability, a complete absence of transparency, a complete absence of living by the law enforcement standards of other parts of the world, to knowingly attract the illicit gains that come from criminal activity or that attract and move terrorist money through the world. We are simply putting into place the standards by which most of the developed world is living. Ultimately we hope all countries will adopt appropriate money laundering standards so we can all live in a safer world. Passage of this legislation is going to make it a lot more difficult for new terrorist organizations to develop. I can remember a number of years ago when I was chairing the subcommittee on Narcotics, Terrorism and International Operations, I conducted an investigation into a bank called BCCI, the Bank of Credit Commerce International. We uncovered a complex money-laundering scheme involving billions of dollars. Fortunately, BCCI was forced to close. We were able to bring many of those involved in it to justice. But we have learned since the closing that BCCI was a bank that had a number of Osama bin Laden's accounts. We learned when BCCI closed, we dealt Osama bin Laden a very serious blow. So as the Congress gives final approval to this legislation in response to these attacks, we need to keep in our focus the benefits that will come to us by pressing these money laundering standards on banks. With the passage of this legislation, terrorist organizations will not be able to move funds as easily and they will not be able to have their people move within our country with bank accounts that we cannot penetrate, with major sources of funding transferred to them from the Middle East or elsewhere to empower them to be able to do the kind of things they did on September 11. I also point out this bill will require the U.S. financial institutions to use appropriate caution and diligence when opening and managing accounts for foreign financial institutions. It will actually prohibit foreign shell banks, those who have no physical location in any country, from opening an account in the United States. Think about that. We currently allow a bank that has no physical presence anywhere--a bank--to open an account in the United States. That is today. With this legislation, that will change. It is high time. The conference report expands the list of money-laundering crimes and will assist our law enforcement efforts in making it easier to prosecute those crimes. It requires the Federal Reserve to take into consideration the effectiveness financial institutions in combating money-laundering activities before any merger is approved. We will have an ability to judge the road traveled before we open up new opportunities for financial institutions. The following is a description of the legislative intent of the Counter Money Laundering and Foreign Anti-Corruption Act of 2001 which was included in section 311 of subtitle A--International Counter Money Laundering and Related Measures of the conference report. First, the Secretary of the Treasury determines whether ``reasonable grounds exist for concluding'' that a foreign jurisdiction, a financial institution operating in a foreign jurisdiction, or a type of international transaction, is of ``primary money laundering concern.'' In making this determination, the Secretary must consult with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, the Secretary of Commerce, and the United States Trade Representative. The Secretary is also directed to consider any relevant factor, including the quality of a jurisdiction's bank secrecy, bank supervision, and anti-money laundering laws and administration, the extent to which a particular institution or type of transaction is involved in money laundering as compared to legitimate banking operations, whether the U.S. has a mutual legal assistance treaty with the jurisdiction and whether the jurisdiction has high levels of official or internal corruption. Second, if a jurisdiction, institution, or transaction is found to be a ``primary money laundering concern,'' the Secretary then selects from a menu of five ``special measures'' to address the identified issue. these five special measures are: requiring additional record keeping and/or reporting on particular transactions; requiring reasonable and practicable steps to identify the beneficial foreign owner of an account opened or maintained in a domestic financial institution; requiring the identification of those using a foreign bank's payable- through account with a domestic financial institution; requiring the identification of those using a foreign bank's correspondent account with a domestic financial institution; and restricting or prohibiting the opening or maintaining of certain corresponding accounts for foreign financial institutions. The special measure relating to the restriction or prohibition of accounts can only be imposed by regulation. However, nothing in this legislation will in any way restrict the right of the Secretary of the Treasury to impose a rule immediately and to ask for comment at the same time. The other four special measures may not remain in effect for more than 120 days, except pursuant to a rule promulgated on or before the end of the 120- day period beginning on the date of the issuance of such order. In choosing which ``special measure'' to impose and how to tailor it, the Secretary shall consider the extent to which they are used to facilitate or promote money laundering, the extent to which they are used for legitimate business purposes and the extent to which such action will sufficiently guard against money laundering. The Secretary is also to consult with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve. If the Secretary is considering prohibiting or restricting correspondent accounts, he is also to consult with the Secretary of State and the Attorney General. The Secretary is also obligated to consider three factors: whether other countries or multilateral groups are taking similar actions; whether the imposition of the measure would create a significant competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms, including any significant cost or compliance; the extent to which the action would have an adverse systemic impact on the payment system and legitimate business; and the effect of such action on United States national security and foreign policy. Within 10 days of invoking any of the special measures against a primary money laundering concern, the Secretary must notify the House and Senate Banking Committees of any such action taken. The conference report includes a provision within section 351 relating to reporting of suspicious transactions which clarifies that the ``safe harbor'' from civil liability for filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR) applies in any litigation, including suit for breach of contract or in an arbitration proceeding and clarifies the prohibition on disclosing that a SAR has been filed. Section 353 of the conference report also includes a provision that increases penalties for violation of Geographic Targeting Orders (GTO) by making it a civil and criminal offense on par with existing law to file reports required by a Geographic Targeting Order; requiring structuring transactions to fall below a GTO-lowered threshold a civil and criminal offense on par with structuring generally; and extends the presumptive GTO period from 60 to 180 days. Finally, section 355 of the conference report includes a provision that grants financial institutions civil immunity for including suspicions of criminal wrongdoing in a written reference on a current or former employer. It has been brought to my attention that this bill, as originally passed by the House, contained a rule of construction which could have limited our ability to provide assistance and cooperation to our foreign allies in their battle against money laundering. The House- passed rule of construction could have potentially limited the access of foreign jurisdictions to our courts and could have required them to negotiate a treaty in order to be able to take advantage of our money- laundering laws in their fight against crime and terrorism. The conference report did not include a rule of construction because the Congress has always recognized the fundamental right of friendly nations to have access to our courts to enforce their rights. Foreign jurisdictions have never needed a treaty to have access to our courts. Since some of the money-laundering conducted in the world today also defrauds foreign governments, it would be hostile to the intent of this bill for us to interject into the statute any rule of construction of legislative language which would in any way limit our foreign allies access to our courts to battle against money laundering. That is why we did not include a rule of construction in the conference report. That is why we today clarify that it is the intent of the legislature that our allies will have access to our courts and the use of our laws if they are the victims of smuggling, fraud, money laundering, or terrorism. I make these remarks today because there should be no confusion on this issue and comments made by others should not be construed as a reassertion of this rule of construction which we have soundly rejected. Our allies have had and must continue to have the benefit of U.S. laws in this fight against money laundering and terrorism. Smuggling, money laundering, and fraud against our allies are an important part of the schemes by which terrorism is financed. It is essential that our money laundering statutes have appropriate scope so our law enforcement can fight money laundering wherever it is found and in any form it is found. By expanding the definition of ``Specified Unlawful Activity'' to include a wide range of offenses against friendly nations who are our allies in the war against terrorism, we are confirming that our money laundering statutes prohibit anyone from using the United States as a platform to commit money laundering offenses against foreign jurisdictions in whatever form that they occur. it should be clear that our intention that the money laundering statues of the United States are intended to insure that all criminals and terrorists cannot circumvent our laws. We shall continue to give our full cooperation to our allies in their efforts to combat smuggling and money laundering, including access to our courts and the unimpeded use of our criminal and civil laws.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I will be very brief. I thank Senator Sarbanes for his strong commitment to trying to balance this properly and for his tenacity through the course of the day. His leadership has been really superb in helping to try to balance the interests. I thank Senator Brownback for understanding what we have been trying to achieve. As the original author of 907, obviously I am sensitive to the change. But I completely understand the circumstances in which we find ourselves. These are changed circumstances. We need to respond, and we need to respond thoughtfully. My hope is that the amendment we have put in that was just adopted a moment ago, which Senator McConnell sponsored on our behalf, adequately sets forth the balance we are trying to strike so the long-term interests of peace and of the peaceful negotiations, bringing people to the table representing all parties' interests, will be respected. I hope we have achieved that. Obviously, there is more to play out. We will watch this very closely as we go forward. I thank Senator McConnell for his efforts today, and Senator Sarbanes. Hopefully, the balance we have tried to achieve has been achieved. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to address the chairman of the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations on the subject of the Global Environment Facility, an organization which for a number of reasons is vital to the restoration and preservation of our earth's environment. The GEF channels funding from over 30 nations to help developing countries confront the problems within their borders which affect the global environment. Traditionally, GEF's focus has been on global warming, biodiversity, international waters, and the ozone layer. Recently, the GEF was given a critical new assignment. It is now the funding mechanism to implement the new international conservation on persistent organic pollutants, or POPS, which was signed by the United States and other nations in June. Though long banned in the U.S., these toxic chemicals continue to be used in the developing world. They travel on air and water currents and work their way up the food chain into humans, particularly native populations in northern latitudes like Alaska. As the funding mechanism for the POPS convention, GEF will have a critical role in phasing out their use. I greatly appreciate the efforts of the subcommittee chairman to provide slightly more than the President's request for the GEF this year. However, I had been hopeful that the Congress would be able to provide not only the budget request, but significantly more to pay off existing arrears. In June I joined Senators Chafee, Biden, Bingaman, Collins, Jeffords, Lieberman, Lugar, Murray, and Snowe in writing to the subcommittee leadership urging the payment of a substantial amount of our arrears.