John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that after we have moved to executive session, the Senator from Iowa be the first to speak in the time period allotted to the opponents.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the cloture vote on the nomination of Mr. Richard Cordray to be Director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture on this nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the votes on the motion to proceed to the Casey Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011, S. 1944, and the motion to proceed to the Temporary Tax Holiday and Government Reduction Act, S. 1931. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported the motion to proceed to the Casey Middle Class Tax Cut Act of 2011, S. 1944, and opposed the motion to proceed to the Temporary Tax Holiday and Government Reduction Act, S. 1931.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the cloture vote on the motion to proceed to legislation to provide civilian payroll tax relief, to reduce the Federal budget deficit, and for other purposes, S. 1931. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have opposed cloture on this bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the African Meeting House in Boston is one of the great landmarks of American freedom, as important to understanding our history as Faneuil Hall and Bunker Hill. Not only is it the Nation's oldest black church building but throughout much of the 19th century it also served as the unofficial headquarters of the movement to abolish slavery in America. And on December 6--its 205th anniversary--the African Meeting House will reopen its historic doors after a $9 million restoration project to preserve the place where giants like William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass once thundered against the evil of human bondage. It was in the Meeting House basement where William Lloyd Garrison formed the New England Anti-Slavery Society in 1832. Garrison predicted that the principles set forth by the Society would ``shake the nation by their mighty power.'' Indeed, they did, because they were, in fact, the same principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and the other founding documents of our country. The Meeting House is a reminder of the struggle which was inevitable because slavery was written into our Constitution before brave Americans--both white and black--shed blood and spoke powerful words to ensure that it was at last written out of that founding document. Maria Stewart, an African-American woman William Lloyd Garrison admired greatly, took Garrison's argument further, insisting in a series of speeches at the African Meeting House that under those founding documents, women were entitled to the same rights as men. ``It is not the color of the skin that makes the man or the woman, but the principle formed in the soul,'' she said in one of her speeches in 1833. ``Brilliant wit will shine, come from when it will; and genius and talent will not hide the brightness of its luster.'' That was never as true as when Frederick Douglass delivered ``A Plea for Speech in Boston'' at the African Meeting House in 1860 after an anti-slavery meeting elsewhere in the city had been disrupted by a mob. ``No right was deemed by the fathers of the Government more sacred than the right of speech,'' Douglass said. It is ``the great moral renovator of society and government,'' he said. Slavery itself could not survive free speech. ``Five years of its exercise would banish the auction block and break every chain in the South,'' he said. Tragically, it ultimately required a war to resolve the great contradiction at the heart of our democracy. And with the coming of the Civil War, the African Meeting House joined the war effort, hosting rallies to recruit an all-black regiment of black soldiers. The result was the legendary 54th Massachusetts Infantry made up of volunteers from as far as Haiti, led by Colonel Robert Gould Shaw--the regiment and its commander both immortalized in monuments, literature and, of course, the award winning film Glory. Mr. President, I was proud to work with Governor Deval Patrick and the Massachusetts congressional delegation to get $4 million in Federal grants for the $9 million renovation of the African Meeting House. But few people have worked harder to make the renovation and rededication a reality than Beverly Morgan-Welch, the executive director of the Museum of African-American History. She has spent more than a decade spearheading the project, and I congratulate her for all her efforts on behalf of the Museum and the Meeting House and for the decades she has spent telling the unique and powerful story of African-Americans. It is an inspiring story about those whose spirits would not be broken by slavery, those who found ways to create families and communities under unimaginably brutal conditions, and those who managed--against all odds--to escape to freedom. The African Meeting House reminds us that America has come a long way in making good on what Dr. King called ``the promissory note'' of our democracy--the right to ``life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'' to all our citizens. It is a testament to the great strides we have made in outlawing the racial injustice that tainted the ideals of American society and helped make possible the election of our first African-American president and, in Massachusetts, our first African- American governor. But the African Meeting House also reminds us of the work and the struggle that continues today. If we are to be fully emancipated from the consequences of slavery, we must understand its history, which played out so eloquently, so gallantly and so courageously at the African Meeting House.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to join the Massachusetts relatives and friends of Massachusetts native son Terigi Rossi in celebrating 15 remarkable years as a police officer in Dallas, TX, the last 10 as a member of that city's elite SWAT Team. The name Terigi Rossi may be familiar to television viewers. Officer Rossi was featured in ``Dallas SWAT,'' a reality television series on the A&E Network that followed members of the Dallas SWAT Team in 2006- 2007. The TV cameras captured the gritty, life-on-the-line experiences of Officer Rossi and his fellow SWAT Team members, but they also followed them home, showing the family life of officers whose lives are always in danger but who always put family first. In Officer Rossi's case, viewer had an intimate view of a man who with his fellow officer is called out to capture a bank robbery suspect barricaded inside a garage, or responding to another call, trying to stop a suspected drug dealer from destroying evidence. But when the work day is done, the cameras followed Officer Rossi through training for an amateur boxing match, then back home where he cooks chicken cutlets for dinner with his wife Grace and their two sons, 15-year-old Antonio and 11-year-old Terigi. Then, it is off to his part time job as a security guard to supplement the family income. As a prosecutor in Middlesex County in the 1970s, I worked with hundreds of police officers. And it was clear how much we ask of these officers. They are required to be many things to many people--minister, social worker, keeper of the peace, the lawman with the courage to face the armed suspects at great personal risk. And since the late 1960s, some of the best of these lawmen have been recruited into elite tactical units to perform dangerous and high-risk operations--lawmen like Terigi Rossi. Terigi Rossi grew up on Harley Avenue in the city of Everett, MA. He graduated from Malden Catholic High School where, not surprisingly, this 6-foot 230-pound athlete was a lineman on the football team, playing offense and defense. He graduated from Suffolk University where he was recruited by the city of Dallas to serve on their police force, one of the largest in the Nation, with 2,977 sworn officers and 556 civilians. And I have to say--Massachusetts's loss was Texas's gain, because Terigi Rossi would have been a great addition to any police force in our State. Just look at the 15 years this always-on-the-go officer has spent on the Dallas police force, including 10 years with the city's always-ready-to-go 50-member SWAT Team as a specialist in gas and chemical weaponry. Officer Rossi's family and friends back home in Massachusetts, particularly my friend Tom Ciulla, are justifiably proud of his record of public service. I join them in celebrating not only his 15 years in a police uniform but also his 10 years in the armor of the Dallas SWAT Team. And I send thanks to Grace, Antonio and Terigi for their support of Officer Rossi. They know as well as any that law enforcement officers are never off duty. They protect the public any time and any place that the peace is threatened. And we should give them all they help they need.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly oppose Senator Paul's resolution of disapproval of the Environmental Protection Agency's, EPA, cross- State air pollution rule because I believe that it is an extreme measure that is anti-clean air and water, anti-jobs and business, anti- public health, and could potentially prevent EPA from protecting the public from cross-state pollution indefinitely. EPA finalized the cross-State air pollution rule on July 2011, establishing a cost effective program to reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from coal-fired powerplants that negatively affect citizens in downwind States. The rule updates a 1997 Clean Air Act standard and replaces a 2008 standard that was struck down by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Because this rule replaces the vacated rule from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, if this resolution succeeds, by law EPA will not be able to issue a ``substantially similar'' rule, which means that supporting this resolution could prohibit EPA indefinitely from promulgating any rule to control cross state air pollution. This would be an enormous step backwards. Contrary to what those who support this Resolution would like you to believe, the cross-State air pollution rule is a very reasonable regulation. By 2014, EPA estimates this Rule will yield up to $280 billion in annual health and environmental benefits, far outweighing the $800 million in annual projected costs. EPA worked closely with industry and specifically designed this rule to give powerplants maximum flexibility and keep compliance costs low. Not implementing this rule would mean that local businesses in many Eastern States would have to turn to more expensive, less cost efficient controls to meet air pollution standards. Also contrary to what those who support this resolution are saying, the cross-State rule would mean more certainty, not less, for business. Powerplants have known this rule was coming for years, and getting rid of it would create serious uncertainly by throwing the issue back to the courts and reopening it to lawsuits. This could mean years of continued uncertainty for companies who won't know what standards they will be held to. The cross-State rule gives power plants the certainty they need. The cross-State air pollution rule also creates jobs. The University of Massachusetts's Political Economy Research Institute estimates that this rule and EPA's other recent clean air rule--the Air Toxics MACT-- together will create nearly 300,000 jobs a year on average over the next 5 years. In fact, thanks to environmental regulations under the Clean Air Act, since 1970, we have created millions of jobs in pollution control and environmental technologies industries, and the United States exports tens of billions of dollars of pollution control technologies annually. Using a term often thrown around these days, Senator Paul's resolution would be ``job killing.'' Most importantly, nullifying this rule will have significant and immediate negative public health effects, especially for our children, seniors, and other vulnerable populations. In Massachusetts alone, the cross-State rule it is expected to avoid up to 390 deaths each year and result in up to $3.2 billion of annual health and environmental benefits. Nationally, by 2014, each year it will prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths, 15,000 nonfatal heart attacks, 19,000 hospital and emergency room visits, 1.8 million days of missed work or school, 400,000 cases of aggravated asthma, and the list goes on. These are not just statistics; these are real children who have to sit on the sidelines during a soccer game or are up wheezing late at night and making emergency trips to the hospital; laborers who can't finish a shift because of respiratory problems; senior citizens whose quality of life is dramatically diminished because they must be attached to a respirator 24 hours a day; and so many more. I recently heard the story of 6-year-old Mia Murphy in Massachusetts whose mother, Rachael Murphy, lives in fear of her daughter's next asthma attack. Only 6 years old, Mia can have coughing fits that last for hours. It is terrifying for both Mia and her mother when Mia can't breathe. Mia needs to take daily medication to control her asthma, but when she has a flare up, only a 5-day course of high dosage steroids can relieve her symptoms. While these steroid courses help, they also cause Mia to have nightmares and emotional outbursts. For Mia, a normal cold can cause a flareup for weeks. As Mia's mother says, ``Children rely on us to keep them safe.'' All children have a right to clean air. With other citizens in Massachusetts, Rachael has bravely spoken out to support efforts like the cross-State rule to improve the air quality in Massachusetts to help keep her children healthy. Without this rule, Massachusetts and other Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States will not be able to control air pollution in the region at a level that protects the public health of our citizens. Forty years of the Clean Air Act have proven that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand. The American people support the Clean Air Act because they know it has improved our Nation's air quality and protected public health. S.J. Res. 27 would undermine this progress at the expense of America's most vulnerable populations. We cannot in good conscious let it pass.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to celebrate the remarkable commitment demonstrated over nearly 18 years in Senate service by one of my most loyal and longest serving aides, Chris Wyman, who retired October 31. Chris Wyman eschews the limelight of politics and the media. But I know him as a close friend and a humble, self-effacing, earnest public servant, who ``walked point'' for me in Massachusetts on every issue and every case affecting military personnel, veterans, and their families. For Chris, the work was always personal. He understands the demands on the military and their families better than most, having enlisted and served on Active Duty in the Navy before he came to work for me shortly after I began my second term representing Massachusetts. The work that Chris began on my staff starting in 1993 was difficult, particularly for someone who found such common cause with anyone who had worn the uniform of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard. Their cause became Chris's concern day in and day out. The issues changed with time, from veterans' benefits and Agent Orange, to PTSD and traumatic brain injuries, but what always remained was Chris's special determination to help those who had served their country and ensure that they were always treated with dignity and respect by the government that had sent them into harm's way. In all those years, Chris was my eyes and ears on the ground in Massachusetts 7 days a week--the person who listened to veterans and their families about the many challenges affecting their lives. His compassion and his presence helped me to take concerns heard in conversations and transform them into legislation to tackle human problems on a more national scale. Among the efforts I worked on in the Senate, you can see the imprint of Chris's visits to veterans across Massachusetts, including the Helping Heroes Keep Their Home Act, which provides protection for servicemembers and military families against foreclosure and increased interest rates; a measure that made service life insurance available to reservists called to Active-Duty and National Guard members; the Corey Shea Act, which allows eligible parents of a fallen servicemember to be buried with their child in any of the 131 cemeteries run by the VA's National Cemetery Administration, if that child has no living spouse or children; a $20 million supplemental appropriation in 2007 for VA centers; seven Vet Centers in Massachusetts benefited from the measure; and millions of dollars more in Federal grants from the Department of Veterans Affairs for homeless vets shelters located throughout Massachusetts. For Chris, each of those legislative efforts began with a human face: veterans who were living on the streets in a country that at times had forgotten their sacrifices when they came home, grieving mothers and fathers who had lost children on the battlefield, veterans struggling during an economic collapse that threatened them and their families with foreclosure, and particularly families who had lost sons and daughters to PTSD and the hidden wounds of war and who had dedicated themselves, with Chris's help, to transforming their mourning into mission to help others. It is no understatement that Chris had one of the toughest and most demanding job in my Boston office, certainly the most intense. He met so many at their most vulnerable and others still who were overcome by the deepest and most indescribable grief--and even anger. But it was Chris Wyman who remembered always that if Americans were sent somewhere in the world dodging bullets and bombs to protect our freedom, then there should be no limit to the government's commitment to do its part back home to support them and their families. For Chris, each day was measured not in minutes or hours but in phone calls--as many as 50 calls a day. Some were routine--soldiers or veterans needing absentee ballots, forms, or help applying for benefits. For Chris, those cases were the easiest the ones in which a highly placed phone call or a well-timed letter could be the lubricant to make the State and Federal bureacracy run more smoothly. But some of those calls were far from routine. Take just one that resulted in a special moment just about this time last year in Newton, MA, when Chris's intervention helped right a wrong inadvertently committed years before by the Federal Government. Thanks to Chris's hard work, I was able to present a Congressional Gold Medal to the family of 2LT James Calhoun, a member of the famed Tuskegee Airmen, who was killed in World War II. The Tuskegee Airmen had been awarded the medal collectively in 2007, but Lieutenant Calhoun's daughter, Jean Calhoun Royster, was excluded from that ceremony. When Jean reached out to Chris and to my office, we intervened to help secure the medal in honor of her father. It was touching to see the pride Jean felt for her father when she held his medal in her very own hands, but more than that, it was inspiring to know that behind the scenes it was Chris's diligence that helped to make it happen. I also remember another special day Chris helped make possible--the day I pinned a Purple Heart on 22-year-old Sean Bannon of Winthrop, who was wounded in both legs in Iraq and spent 6 weeks recovering at Walter Reed. We held the ceremony at Fenway Park on Patriots Day in 2008. And the Red Sox surprised Sean by allowing him to throw out the first pitch, with No. 38, Curt Schilling, standing in as Sean's catcher. He wasn't on the field let alone on the mound that day, but Chris Wyman was the MVP of our team that day the unsung hero of a proper welcome home for a real military hero, Sean Bannon. That was a joyful day for the Bannon family and for all of us, but for Chris it was just one of the many ways he made a contribution. It was every day that Chris received calls from wives, husbands, and children worried about loved ones on Active Duty somewhere in the world or from veterans enduring life-threatening health conditions. They, too, needed real action, not just a promise to get back to them later. And whenever he got one of those calls, Chris would spring into action and stay at it until he got the answers and results that these brave Americans and their families deserved. Among these solemn duties were some that Chris rarely spoke about but which are seared into him forever. Again and again, he made personal visits to the homes of Gold Star families. He would simply show up to visit, to comfort, and to help out after families received the phone call that every military parent dreads the most. Chris formed deep friendships with many of the families, friendships that will last a lifetime. While many quote Abraham Lincoln's words, Chris lived them--through his actions, not his words, he held sacred Lincoln's pledge at Gettysburg that our country will care for ``him who has borne the battle, and his widow and his orphan.'' And so Chris did--at wakes, at funerals, in military hospitals and veterans homes, in all these difficult circumstances and the difficult days and months and years that followed, Chris Wyman kept the faith. Chris did this for all veterans--in their spirit and many times in their memory. But he also joined a special fraternity the tight knit ``Band of Brothers'' who served with me during Swiftboat duty in Vietnam. He came to them in the 1990s and never lost touch with any of them, extending to them, as he did for so many Massachusetts veterans, total dedication and commitment through hospital visits, weddings, and funerals. It was no surprise, then, that several years ago they made him an honorary member of their ``brotherhood,'' presenting him with a blue crew member shirt, exactly the same as the ones they wore so proudly whenever they were together. It seems fitting that Chris is retiring so close to Veterans Day--a day to honor America's veterans for their patriotism, their love of country, and their willingness to serve and to sacrifice because for these past nearly 18 years, for Chris Wyman, every day was Veterans Day. He is a shining example of service to those who have served. Mr. President, both Chris and I are proud to be Navy men, and in the Navy, we have a special term--``Bravo Zulu'' which means ``Well Done.'' So, as one old sailor to another, with a thank you for many years of loyalty and friendship, to Chris Wyman I say ``Bravo Zulu'' for a job well done.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is one of those times when, on the floor of the Senate, we hear a proposal that people characterize as one thing, but it is, in fact, anything but what they are characterizing it as. What I just heard the good Senator from Mississippi talking about: We don't want to slam the brakes on development, he said. We don't want to have the SEC intrusion. So they are trying to say to the American people that they want to liberate the Internet, when, in fact, what they want to do is imprison the Internet within the hands of the most powerful communications entities today to act as the gatekeepers who will control the ability of the Internet to do the very kind of development that brought us here. What they are talking about, their concept, this CRA challenge is that wolf in sheep's clothing. It is that simple. So I think colleagues need to step back and think about how the Internet got to be what it is today when it was developed. I know the Senator from West Virginia, the chairman of the committee, and I were members of the Commerce Committee back in the 1990s when we wrote the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and we thought we were pretty clever and we wrote a good act. Within 6 months of writing that act, it was obsolete because all our conversation was about telephony at a moment where, because of the Internet, the entire discussion was about to become about data transmission and the movement of information over the Internet. That has never been fully revisited. But the reason we have a Google today, the reason we have had this incredible development of Internet retail business, of all these Web sites, of Facebook, and so many more is because of the open architecture of access to that Internet--which, I would remind everybody in America, was created by government money in government research. It came out of an effort to develop a communications system for our country in the case of nuclear war. So we created, through DARPA, ARPA, research that produced this communications network. Then the private sector saw the opportunity, and a whole bunch of very creative people rushed in and made the Internet what it is today. Overturning the rules, as the CRA proposes to do, would put the very open architecture that has created this extraordinary agent of communication, of commerce, and family communication, and all these things it has done for business, it would put it at risk and discourage investment in companies at the edge of the Internet that could be the next Google or the next Amazon. Overturning these rules would actually hurt our competitiveness and economic growth and they would diffuse the creative energy that has driven the Internet to be what it is today. Because if we overturn what they are doing today, we take the reality of the Internet and we put it in the hands of the gatekeepers. Everything that goes over the Internet today goes either through our telephone at home or television or whatever, through cable, out of our house or the airwaves. But if we are not having an open architecture on the Internet, then the people who control those access points can start discriminating about who gets access at what speed; and if they control who gets access at what speed and begin to charge more for that, you begin to have a profound impact on the ability of any business to develop and a profound impact on the access that consumers have come to anticipate with respect to the Internet. Think about this. We are talking about neutrality. We are standing here trying to defend neutrality. The other side is coming in here trying to create a new structure where the process will be gamed once again in favor of the most powerful. This is part of the whole debate that is going on in America today, about the 99 percent who feel like everything is gamed against them and the system is geared by the people who have the money and the people who have the power who get what they want. That is what this debate is about. The network neutrality rules the FCC has promulgated are based on the principles that everybody should support of promoting transparency of broadband service operations, preventing the blocking of legal content and Web sites, and prohibiting discrimination of individuals, applications, and other Web sites. That is what we are for. This CRA is an effort to undo the FCC's ability to protect those principles. Establishing those principles has actually brought about certainty and predictability to the broadband economy. It ensures that anyone can create a Web site, anyone can deliver an Internet-enabled service with the certainty that is going to be made available to everybody else on the Internet. Innovators now know they are not going to have to go ask a big telephone company: Hey, Verizon, hey AT&T, will you guys please let us have access so we can go do this thing? Oh, well, maybe we will do that, but we are going to charge you in order to do that. They completely destroy the openness that is provided, this ability for anybody in America to sit in their home or school or somewhere and come up with an idea and innovate. That freedom to innovate, the freedom to innovate is what has made the Internet the platform for economic and social development it is today, and a vote for the CRA is a vote to stifle that. On the side of those favoring the FCC's action are venture capitalists and the companies that have made the Internet what it is today, civil rights groups, civil liberties advocates, academics, scholars who have studied and testified to the virtues of open networks. Let me quote a few of them. John Doerr is somebody whom many of us have come to know by virtue of his business acumen and the legendary venture capitalist efforts he was engaged in. He was an early backer of Amazon, an early backer of Google, Electronic Arts, Netscape, and a number of other innovators whose creations have driven the growth of the Internet. Here is what he says: Maintaining an open Internet is critical to our economy's growth . . . and this effort is a pragmatic balance of innovation, economic growth, and crucial investment in the Internet. Ray Ramsey, the president and CEO of TechNet, a national bipartisan network of more than 400 technology sector CEOs, said of the vote at the Commission in favor of the network neutrality rules: The vote by the FCC is a pragmatic recognition of the need for codifying principles for protecting nondiscrimination and openness for the Internet. Charlie Ergen, the president and CEO of Dish Network, said: The Commission's order is a solid framework for protecting the open Internet. The new rules give companies, including Dish Network, the framework to invest capital and manpower in Internet-related technologies without fear that our investment will be undermined by carriers' discriminatory practices. Others supporting the order include the Communications Workers of America, civil rights organizations, consumer advocates. In sum, those who support the rules include those who fund the development of Internet companies, those who use the Internet, and advocates who favor open discourse and debate. I think we in the Senate ought to listen to the people who created it, the people who developed it, the people who are taking it to the next generation, and the people who use it. The Los Angeles Times editorialized on Sunday in favor of the rules of the FCC, saying: The agency's net neutrality rules are a reasonable attempt to protect the innovative nature of the Internet and should not be overturned. Despite all of what I just said, some have made what I have called the ``wolf in sheep's clothing'' argument, the false argument that network neutrality rules regulate the Internet--that they actually regulate it--and this is an opportunity to keep it open and impose a condition on innovators. I don't know how asking innovators to get permission from somebody else to be able to go do what they have already done since the 1990s is going to improve things. The truth is, network neutrality rules govern not the Internet but they govern the behavior of the firms that own and operate the gateways to the Internet. That is what is at stake. When the airwaves that carry the information that connects us to everyone else in the Internet is in the hands of a few and subject to their control, we are in trouble. The rules we are debating today state that those gateways should not be used to favor some voices over others or some firms over others on the Internet. That is what is at stake. That is what this fight is about. The truth is, if the rules are overturned, every innovator on the Internet will be exposed to the risk that, before they innovate, before they create a new product, they are going to have to go to somebody and say: Mother, may I do this? Then there will be a price attached to it. Beyond the false argument that network neutrality constitutes regulation of the Internet rather than anticompetitive behavior, opponents to the rule predicted the FCC action was going to have negative economic repercussions. Yet even in an economy that has struggled, that prediction has proven to be wrong. In the time since the FCC voted on the rule to preserve the open Internet, investment in networks that support wired and wireless broadbrand grew by more than 10 percent compared to the same period the year before. Venture capital investments in Internet-specific companies surged, with $2.3 billion going into 275 companies in the second quarter of 2011. It may well be that 2011 is going to be the biggest year for tech IPOs in more than 10 years. That seems to indicate strong investor confidence in the companies that rely on the open Internet already exists, and we should not disrupt that. Having lost the argument that network neutrality hurts innovation or the economy, they therefore want to create a new argument; that is, the FCC acted outside its legal authority in protecting the free flow of communication on the Internet. A court, the right place for that decision to be made, is going to make that decision. But, again, the argument actually challenges common sense. It challenges the basic understanding of reasonableness. To argue that the FCC, the agency that Congress created in order to regulate communications by wire and radio, somehow has no jurisdiction in this very space is to argue that communications over the Internet are not, in fact, conducted over a wire or over the airwaves. It is completely lacking in any foundation in common sense and certainly in the law. The law we created grants the FCC the authority in the Telecommunications Act to ``make such rules and regulations, and issue such orders, not inconsistent with this Act, as may be necessary for its functions.'' That is the power we gave to them. Under title II, title III, title VI of that act, it encourages the FCC to protect the public interest and encourage just and reasonable rates through competition. That is precisely what net neutrality achieves. It is precisely what we achieve under the rules of the FCC. Under title VII, the FCC is mandated to take immediate action to remove barriers to infrastructure investment and promote competition in the telecommunications market if advanced telecommunications is not being deployed in a reasonable and timely fashion. That can be determined on a case-by-case basis, and we obviously can continue as we have since the early 1990s to do this. So there is no good reason for this debate to fall along party lines. I hope it will not be just Democrats who vote to preserve this rule. I hope we will maintain an open Internet technology and support the open Internet order.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what would be the order after that?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be recognized for the time I have--I think it is about 15 minutes--after that.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, once again, too many of our Nation's small businesses are facing difficulty in gaining access to capital. That is why today I am introducing the Increasing Small Business Lending Act to increase access to capital for our Nation's small businesses to help them sustain and build their businesses, create jobs and expand our economy. In October 2008, markets froze. Credit lines were cut. A lending gap was created in the market. Even Small Business Administration guaranteed loans, that help reduce risk for lenders, were stalled. Congress stepped up and enacted temporary measures to help fill the gaps in small business lending, saving nearly 90,000 small businesses. One such business is LazerCraze in North Andover, Massachusetts that received an SBA loan to expand to a second location and purchase state- of-the-art equipment that allowed them to hire an additional 37 full time employees. SBA, administrator Karen Mills has said that the previous temporary changes to the SBA loan programs were a success, ``In short, it worked. We engineered a turnaround in SBA lending even though conventional credit was, and still is to some extent, very tight. Taxpayers got a big bang for the buck. With just over a billion dollars in total subsidy, we supported about $42 billion in lending. In fact, SBA had its highest-ever weekly loan volume the week before Christmas when we supported nearly 2 billion dollars in lending, 10 billion total last quarter. Here is the headline: overall, that is nearly 90,000 small businesses that are not surviving this recession, but growing and creating jobs. Unfortunately, the temporary small business loan provisions ran out of funding in January 2011, ahead of the authorization which expired in March 2011. Since then, small business lending has declined, making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and for our economy to emerge from our economic downturn. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to the Small Business Lending Market Stabilization Act, which I introduced in 2008 that was included in both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, and extended in the Small Business jobs Act, P.L. 111-240. The Increasing Small Business Lending, Act will eliminate for one year the fees for 7(a) and 504 Small Business Administration loans and increase SBA loan guarantee of 90 percent, policies that were started as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and extended in the Small Business Jobs Act. According to the SBA, total small business loans outstanding, loans under $1 million, actually declined during the first half of 2011 after the temporary provisions ended. Loans outstanding to small businesses at the end of the second quarter totaled only $607 billion, which is the slowest since the economic downturn began in 2008. We can't afford to have our economic progress reversed by a decline in access to capital for small businesses. Since the increased guarantee and reduced fees have expired, our economic recovery could be impeded if we don't act to continue the policies that we know work. By extending key provisions to bolster access to capital, small businesses will have the assurance and support they need to put their innovative ideas into practice and get more Americans back to work. My legislation will complement the existing Small Business Lending Fund that encourages lending to small businesses through smaller community banks. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and I ask all Senators to support job growth and small businesses by supporting this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, once again, too many of our Nation's small businesses are facing difficulty in gaining access to capital. That is why today I am introducing the Increasing Small Business Lending Act to increase access to capital for our Nation's small businesses to help them sustain and build their businesses, create jobs and expand our economy. In October 2008, markets froze. Credit lines were cut. A lending gap was created in the market. Even Small Business Administration guaranteed loans, that help reduce risk for lenders, were stalled. Congress stepped up and enacted temporary measures to help fill the gaps in small business lending, saving nearly 90,000 small businesses. One such business is LazerCraze in North Andover, Massachusetts that received an SBA loan to expand to a second location and purchase state- of-the-art equipment that allowed them to hire an additional 37 full time employees. SBA, administrator Karen Mills has said that the previous temporary changes to the SBA loan programs were a success, ``In short, it worked. We engineered a turnaround in SBA lending even though conventional credit was, and still is to some extent, very tight. Taxpayers got a big bang for the buck. With just over a billion dollars in total subsidy, we supported about $42 billion in lending. In fact, SBA had its highest-ever weekly loan volume the week before Christmas when we supported nearly 2 billion dollars in lending, 10 billion total last quarter. Here is the headline: overall, that is nearly 90,000 small businesses that are not surviving this recession, but growing and creating jobs. Unfortunately, the temporary small business loan provisions ran out of funding in January 2011, ahead of the authorization which expired in March 2011. Since then, small business lending has declined, making it more difficult for small businesses to create jobs and for our economy to emerge from our economic downturn. The legislation I am introducing today is similar to the Small Business Lending Market Stabilization Act, which I introduced in 2008 that was included in both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5, and extended in the Small Business jobs Act, P.L. 111-240. The Increasing Small Business Lending, Act will eliminate for one year the fees for 7(a) and 504 Small Business Administration loans and increase SBA loan guarantee of 90 percent, policies that were started as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and extended in the Small Business Jobs Act. According to the SBA, total small business loans outstanding, loans under $1 million, actually declined during the first half of 2011 after the temporary provisions ended. Loans outstanding to small businesses at the end of the second quarter totaled only $607 billion, which is the slowest since the economic downturn began in 2008. We can't afford to have our economic progress reversed by a decline in access to capital for small businesses. Since the increased guarantee and reduced fees have expired, our economic recovery could be impeded if we don't act to continue the policies that we know work. By extending key provisions to bolster access to capital, small businesses will have the assurance and support they need to put their innovative ideas into practice and get more Americans back to work. My legislation will complement the existing Small Business Lending Fund that encourages lending to small businesses through smaller community banks. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy and I ask all Senators to support job growth and small businesses by supporting this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is a silent epidemic in our country that today threatens the lives of more than 5 million Americans. Of those people afflicted with this disease, 150,000 will not survive this decade. In 2008 alone, an estimated 56,000 Americans were newly infected while as many as 75 percent of all infected people did not even know that they carried this disease. Without further preventative action, this growing health threat will only cost more lives and hundreds of billions in additional health care expenses. This ticking time bomb is viral hepatitis. That is bad news. But there is also cause for hope. Treatment already exists that can eradicate hepatitis C in close to 75 percent of people with the disease. Another treatment reduces the level of hepatitis B in over 80 percent of those treated. There has been a vaccine against hepatitis B for decades that has left millions immune to that strain of virus. We understand how viral hepatitis is spread, how it can be prevented, and how to test people for infection. There have just been a string of significant medical advances that will improve the effectiveness of viral hepatitis screening and treatment. It is clear that we already have the tools at our disposal to prevent, treat, and control the vast majority of these infections, now what we need is a coordinated strategy to put these tools to work. That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis Testing Act of 2011, which appropriates $110 million over five years to improve education, testing, and care for viral hepatitis across Massachusetts and in local communities around the country. This legislation is a down-payment on a national effort to fight and ultimately eradicate hepatitis B and C in America. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in cosponsoring this effort. Viral hepatitis is known as a silent killer because it can stay a- symptomatic for years before it leads to serious liver disease. It is the most common cause of liver cancer and yet doctors and patients alike are often largely uninformed about this disease. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and has spread to an estimated 2 billion people worldwide while hepatitis C has reached about 170 million people. Chronic viral hepatitis is widespread and it is dangerous. Last year, the Institute of Medicine released a report outlining a number of specific recommendations on how to combat viral hepatitis. To build on those recommendations, Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Howard Koh convened a task force and developed a detailed, comprehensive action plan to combat the pervasive spread of this disease. These recommendations served as the foundation for the legislation I am proposing today. As of today, there is no coordinated national strategy in place to fight viral hepatitis. The action plan put forward by Dr. Koh and his team seeks to rectify that problem by incorporating standardized viral hepatitis prevention and treatment programs into the health care infrastructure that already exists. The bill I introduced today would quickly implement a number of these programs and provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the resources to act. The first step in prevention is determining who is infected with the virus so they can receive the appropriate care and will be less likely to pass on this disease to others. In order to determine the prevalence of the problem and to increase the number of people who are aware of their infection, The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act calls for HHS to work with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Preventive Services Task Force to develop and implement effective surveillance and testing protocols. Whereas 75 percent of people carrying viral hepatitis today do not even know they are infected, improved testing could flip that disturbing statistic on its head in just 5 years. It is also a sad reality that a number of minority populations are at greatly increased risk for contracting viral hepatitis. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for over half of chronic hepatitis B cases. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians and Native Alaskans also have disproportionately high rates of these viruses. Additionally, without the proper preventative care, there is a high likelihood that pregnant women who carry the virus will pass it on to their unborn children. For those reasons, the legislation I introduced today also focuses on screening and treating high-risk populations and pregnant mothers for viral hepatitis. Educational programs targeting high-risk groups will empower people to protect themselves from contracting hepatitis, and ensuring that people who have viral hepatitis receive the appropriate follow-up care will further help to prevent the spread of this epidemic. Additionally, providing doctors with the proper training on the causes, symptoms, and treatments would also go a long way toward stemming the tide of transmission and improving outcomes for patients who have contracted the disease. This legislation makes supplemental viral hepatitis training for health care professionals a priority. To do the things we need to do in order to save lives and control this deadly epidemic, we are going to have to make a relativelodest investment. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act appropriates $110 million over 5 years that will go toward implementing the educational, screening, and treatment measures required under this act. Rather than creating a whole new hepatitis prevention apparatus, this funding will be used to integrate these new and improved procedures into the existing health care infrastructure through grants to public and nonprofit private entities, including States, Indian tribes, and public:private partnerships. The human benefits of this legislation are undeniable--these provisions will reduce transmission, improve the quality of life for people with viral hepatitis, and prevent the deaths of countless mothers and fathers and children. It is also undeniable that this is a wise investment of resources and good policy. These investments are a classic case of using limited resources to maximum impact, as we invest a modest amount of money today in order to save lives, pain, and tens of billions of dollars tomorrow. Today, hepatitis B costs patients around $2.5 billion per year. With baby boomers aging into Medicare and accounting for an estimated two out of every three cases of chronic hepatitis C, medical costs for treating this disease are expected to skyrocket from $30 billion to more than $85 billion in 2024. Late diagnosis is a significant driver of costs, as more expensive procedures and treatments are required the further the infection has progressed. To put this in even starker terms, the cost of the hepatitis B vaccine ranges from $75 to $165, while treatment can cost up to $16 thousand per year for a single person, or up to $110 thousand per hospital visit, should the disease develop into liver cancer. Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis is the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases in the state. Additionally, there continues to be a striking increase in cases of hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the State, which suggests that there is a new epidemic of the disease taking hold. Until recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature provided $1.4 million for surveillance to detect outbreaks and behaviors of concern as well as for targeted screening and treatment of high-risk populations. Today, however, as this public health threat spreads, all of that funding has been eliminated due to budget cuts. Massachusetts receives just $104,305 from the CDC for an Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coordinator. This is a valuable position but it is not nearly enough to support core public health services. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act will allow Massachusetts to invest in a sustainable infrastructure that would improve health care for our citizens. The choice is ours: we can either invest in preventative programs and more robust screening now or we can just let this epidemic continue to proliferate around the country and foot the bill later for the expensive surgical procedures, medicines, and hospital bills that will only continue to grow. Without action, thousands more Americans will die year from preventa seases. We know what we need to do; now it is up to us to do it. Let us not make excuses. Let us lower health care costs for American families, improve the quality o our care, and save lives. I again urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is a silent epidemic in our country that today threatens the lives of more than 5 million Americans. Of those people afflicted with this disease, 150,000 will not survive this decade. In 2008 alone, an estimated 56,000 Americans were newly infected while as many as 75 percent of all infected people did not even know that they carried this disease. Without further preventative action, this growing health threat will only cost more lives and hundreds of billions in additional health care expenses. This ticking time bomb is viral hepatitis. That is bad news. But there is also cause for hope. Treatment already exists that can eradicate hepatitis C in close to 75 percent of people with the disease. Another treatment reduces the level of hepatitis B in over 80 percent of those treated. There has been a vaccine against hepatitis B for decades that has left millions immune to that strain of virus. We understand how viral hepatitis is spread, how it can be prevented, and how to test people for infection. There have just been a string of significant medical advances that will improve the effectiveness of viral hepatitis screening and treatment. It is clear that we already have the tools at our disposal to prevent, treat, and control the vast majority of these infections, now what we need is a coordinated strategy to put these tools to work. That is why I am introducing the Viral Hepatitis Testing Act of 2011, which appropriates $110 million over five years to improve education, testing, and care for viral hepatitis across Massachusetts and in local communities around the country. This legislation is a down-payment on a national effort to fight and ultimately eradicate hepatitis B and C in America. I hope my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will join me in cosponsoring this effort. Viral hepatitis is known as a silent killer because it can stay a- symptomatic for years before it leads to serious liver disease. It is the most common cause of liver cancer and yet doctors and patients alike are often largely uninformed about this disease. Hepatitis B is 100 times more infectious than HIV and has spread to an estimated 2 billion people worldwide while hepatitis C has reached about 170 million people. Chronic viral hepatitis is widespread and it is dangerous. Last year, the Institute of Medicine released a report outlining a number of specific recommendations on how to combat viral hepatitis. To build on those recommendations, Assistant Secretary of Health Dr. Howard Koh convened a task force and developed a detailed, comprehensive action plan to combat the pervasive spread of this disease. These recommendations served as the foundation for the legislation I am proposing today. As of today, there is no coordinated national strategy in place to fight viral hepatitis. The action plan put forward by Dr. Koh and his team seeks to rectify that problem by incorporating standardized viral hepatitis prevention and treatment programs into the health care infrastructure that already exists. The bill I introduced today would quickly implement a number of these programs and provides the Department of Health and Human Services with the resources to act. The first step in prevention is determining who is infected with the virus so they can receive the appropriate care and will be less likely to pass on this disease to others. In order to determine the prevalence of the problem and to increase the number of people who are aware of their infection, The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act calls for HHS to work with the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Preventive Services Task Force to develop and implement effective surveillance and testing protocols. Whereas 75 percent of people carrying viral hepatitis today do not even know they are infected, improved testing could flip that disturbing statistic on its head in just 5 years. It is also a sad reality that a number of minority populations are at greatly increased risk for contracting viral hepatitis. Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders account for over half of chronic hepatitis B cases. African Americans, Latinos, and American Indians and Native Alaskans also have disproportionately high rates of these viruses. Additionally, without the proper preventative care, there is a high likelihood that pregnant women who carry the virus will pass it on to their unborn children. For those reasons, the legislation I introduced today also focuses on screening and treating high-risk populations and pregnant mothers for viral hepatitis. Educational programs targeting high-risk groups will empower people to protect themselves from contracting hepatitis, and ensuring that people who have viral hepatitis receive the appropriate follow-up care will further help to prevent the spread of this epidemic. Additionally, providing doctors with the proper training on the causes, symptoms, and treatments would also go a long way toward stemming the tide of transmission and improving outcomes for patients who have contracted the disease. This legislation makes supplemental viral hepatitis training for health care professionals a priority. To do the things we need to do in order to save lives and control this deadly epidemic, we are going to have to make a relativelodest investment. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act appropriates $110 million over 5 years that will go toward implementing the educational, screening, and treatment measures required under this act. Rather than creating a whole new hepatitis prevention apparatus, this funding will be used to integrate these new and improved procedures into the existing health care infrastructure through grants to public and nonprofit private entities, including States, Indian tribes, and public:private partnerships. The human benefits of this legislation are undeniable--these provisions will reduce transmission, improve the quality of life for people with viral hepatitis, and prevent the deaths of countless mothers and fathers and children. It is also undeniable that this is a wise investment of resources and good policy. These investments are a classic case of using limited resources to maximum impact, as we invest a modest amount of money today in order to save lives, pain, and tens of billions of dollars tomorrow. Today, hepatitis B costs patients around $2.5 billion per year. With baby boomers aging into Medicare and accounting for an estimated two out of every three cases of chronic hepatitis C, medical costs for treating this disease are expected to skyrocket from $30 billion to more than $85 billion in 2024. Late diagnosis is a significant driver of costs, as more expensive procedures and treatments are required the further the infection has progressed. To put this in even starker terms, the cost of the hepatitis B vaccine ranges from $75 to $165, while treatment can cost up to $16 thousand per year for a single person, or up to $110 thousand per hospital visit, should the disease develop into liver cancer. Viral hepatitis is an increasingly significant issue for Massachusetts. The Department of Public Health reports over 2,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis B infection and 8,000 to 10,000 cases of newly diagnosed chronic Hepatitis C infection each year. Viral hepatitis is the highest volume of reportable infectious diseases in the state. Additionally, there continues to be a striking increase in cases of hepatitis C infection among adolescents and young adults in the State, which suggests that there is a new epidemic of the disease taking hold. Until recently, the Massachusetts State Legislature provided $1.4 million for surveillance to detect outbreaks and behaviors of concern as well as for targeted screening and treatment of high-risk populations. Today, however, as this public health threat spreads, all of that funding has been eliminated due to budget cuts. Massachusetts receives just $104,305 from the CDC for an Adult Viral Hepatitis Prevention Coordinator. This is a valuable position but it is not nearly enough to support core public health services. The Viral Hepatitis Testing Act will allow Massachusetts to invest in a sustainable infrastructure that would improve health care for our citizens. The choice is ours: we can either invest in preventative programs and more robust screening now or we can just let this epidemic continue to proliferate around the country and foot the bill later for the expensive surgical procedures, medicines, and hospital bills that will only continue to grow. Without action, thousands more Americans will die year from preventa seases. We know what we need to do; now it is up to us to do it. Let us not make excuses. Let us lower health care costs for American families, improve the quality o our care, and save lives. I again urge my colleagues to join me in cosponsoring this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I believe we are currently debating the motion to proceed to go to the energy, water, et cetera, package. Included in that is the proposal of the President that he has sent up asking the Senate to vote on the question of an infrastructure bank. I believe there was a prior vote in the Senate on that in the context of the Jobs Act, which we all know failed at that time. There are some signs that this may wind up being a partisan effort here, but I hope colleagues will stop and think very carefully about the infrastructure bank proposal and what it represents to our country. Whether we can get it over the hurdle at this moment, I do not know. But it is an idea whose time has come, and I am confident in the next weeks or months, hopefully, the Senate will embrace this concept. The reason for doing so is very simple. Colleagues on both sides of the aisle are increasingly reminded when they go home, as well as familiar here just in the general dialog about where we are going in our country, of the enormous deficit reduction--the deficit; it is on my mind--of the infrastructure deficit we face in this country as a whole. So I want colleagues to stop and think hard about a simple question: How are we going to build America? How are we going to build America going forward so that we can do what our parents and our grandparents did for us, providing us with the basic infrastructure of a nation that has been able to allow people to move easily from home to work to places of commerce across the country, an interstate highway system, all of our airports, our train stations, all of the assets that provided for the strength of our Nation and for the kind of communities we live in? None of it appeared out of nowhere. It was built because people had a vision, people had an idea about how you make communities strong, and also how economies work. The fact is that some of the greatest projects in our country, whether it is some of the great bridges we look at today--Golden Gate Bridge, Triborough Bridge, George Washington, countless bridges across the Potomac and elsewhere--the tunnels, the roads, our water treatment facilities, our airports, and the airline system we have, all of those things contribute to the strength of our country. But everyone here knows we are not currently pursuing a set of projects calculated to make America more competitive and to continue that rich history and tradition of building for the future. We are busy living off the assets that were created by the generations that preceded us. So the question has to be asked by every colleague here: Are we going to appropriate the money for grants? And the answer is no, partly because the deficit and the debt are telling us in loud terms we do not have those kinds of funds right now, but also because everybody here sees the difficulty we are having trying to get the highway bill reauthorized or the FAA bill reauthorized in order to do the things we need to do. The proposal for an infrastructure bank is a proposal that recognizes this fiscal reality. We simply do not have and will not allocate the types of funds necessary to do the job every American knows has to be done. That does not mean the job cannot be done. There is a way to do it. And the way to do it is to invite other people's money, the private sector, not tax dollars, to come to the table and invest in these projects, where these projects have revenue streams that will support that kind of investment. One of the important features of the infrastructure bank that I ask colleagues to focus on is the fact that this bank is not a grant entity. There will be no grants. It is exclusively loans, and exclusively loans that meet the fiduciary test of their ability to be able to be repaid, to have a revenue stream that will support the loans themselves. I would say to my colleagues, some of them I know have asked me occasionally: Well, is this going to be an entity such as Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac? Is it going to be one of those government-supported entities that got some folks in trouble? The answer is no, resoundingly and profoundly no. It is not similar in any way whatsoever. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac issued stock. They were for-profit entities listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They were using the Federal guarantee on a loan to actually leverage their position in the marketplace in competition with other entities and for-profits. This bank is not for profit. No issuance of stock will be listed on any exchange. It will exist exclusively for the purpose of lending to those types of projects that meet the highest fiscal standards with respect to the ability of those projects to be repaid. In fact, in each and every lending situation, the infrastructure bank will make a risk analysis, just as you do on any deal in Wall Street. There is a risk analysis, and a risk factor will be assigned to that deal. In fact, fees will be charged to the borrowers, to the dealmakers, in order to cover that level of risk. That will be part of the cost of the transaction. The benefit of this infrastructure bank is that by virtue of the Treasury Department providing a discount for the Federal Treasury guarantee, you actually make the loan attractive in terms of the private sector in competition, and it does so at a level, as I said, of risk analysis that does not put the Federal Government or the taxpayer on line and at risk for the measured level of the loan itself, but only the risk which is credited or put on the books in terms of what is carried by the Treasury Department as the risk of this particular loan. So, in fact, if you look at the type of projects that are authorized by this--only energy projects, transportation projects, and water projects--in the better part of the country, they are limited to $100 million size or up, and there is a set-aside for rural communities. In the rural communities, the level of loans could be $25 million or up, because obviously in parts of rural America, you have smaller kinds of projects, and we want everyone in the country to be able to share from the benefits of this kind of an infrastructure bank. I would say to my colleagues, this bank has bipartisan support. It has been introduced in slightly different forms from what the President has put it in. But the fundamentals of the bank in structure and concept are the same. It has been introduced by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas, who is a coauthor; Senator Lindsey Graham, Senator Mark Warner are the original cosponsors. But it has other cosponsors and broader support including, I might add, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which is a strong supporter of the infrastructure bank, and was present at the announcement of this legislation, as well as the AFL-CIO. Why is this infrastructure bank necessary? What is it we need? Well, everybody knows that the experts are telling us we have a $2.2 trillion infrastructure deficit in America. That means there are over $2.2 trillion of projects around the country, countless bridges in countless communities around the country, roads or tunnels or airports, countless projects which need to be repaired, upgraded, or put in place at first instance. We are that far behind, a $2.2 trillion deficit to what we ought to be doing. The American Civil Society of Architects and Engineers tells us that we could spend about $250 billion a year for the next 40 years just to bring our roads up to par, and we are not about to do that, we know, because we do not have the money, because we are not getting that kind of an appropriation now for our initiatives. Listen to what Oklahoma City Mayor Mike Cornett says: Mayors see up close the deferred maintenance that is going on in the Nation's cities. It is a ticking timebomb. We also know it puts people to work. Well, Cornett is president of the Republican Mayors and Local Officials Coalition within the U.S. Conference of Mayors. He knows what he is talking about in terms of this deferred maintenance. But the truth is, every Senator here knows. You can go back home and find mayors and State senators, State representatives, Governors, Departments of Transportation--all of them are pleading with us to try to help provide the kinds of funding necessary because they are simply overwhelmed. I might add many of our States are living under court orders to do some of these projects, particularly the water, the combined sewer overflow-water treatment facilities, where communities have sued and you need to do those projects in order to meet the standards. And they are under court order, without understanding where the money is going to come from. But they are under a court order. The fact is that whether we decide to do these things is going to determine how competitive America is going to be. Right now, everybody knows we are facing a transformational economic challenge. It is different from the challenge we faced in the last century. During that period of time, as we came out of World War II, we were the only major economy in the world left standing. At the end of the war, we had both the vision and foresight as well as the courage to put a lot of money on the line in the Marshall plan to help rebuild Europe and rebuild Japan. And we saw throughout the Cold War the ways in which that investment paid back for the United States of America, indeed for the western world and for the values that we made central to that kind of an investment. That has changed. It started to change in the eighties and nineties, and now we are seeing, with the rise of less developed countries that are, after all, doing the very things that we encouraged them to do--we told them you have got to liberate your societies to be able to go out and compete in the marketplace, that they needed to open up that market, they needed to trade, they needed to excite capital formation and invest and so forth. That is exactly what they have done. They have not changed their political systems, in many cases, which remain totalitarian and closed, one party, but they have certainly changed their economic systems, and in doing so, they have transformed the marketplace we are competing in. So the United States is not looking at the same playing field, where we had unlimited resources, unlimited capacity to go out and, frankly, win. We could win many times without even trying that hard. But now other people are doing the same things we took for granted. They are competing in science, they are competing in technology, they are competing in manufacturing, they are competing in software, and they are competing all kinds of things that were our domain for a long period of time. The market globally has changed significantly enough that we are facing a challenge to our ability to be able to remain the No. 1 economy. I heard today that China will probably be the No. 1 economy in the world within 5 or 6 years, much faster than we had anticipated previously. So if the United States is going to compete and get its act together going forward, we have to invest in the infrastructure of our country, because that is how you, No. 1, create jobs, but, No. 2, you provide the ability to move goods, to provide for people, to provide for the quality of life and the kinds of institutions that make a difference to our ability to be able to compete and to live the quality of life we want. The figures of other people's commitment to infrastructure tell us the story. China is investing 9 percent of its gross domestic product in infrastructure. Europe is investing 5 percent of its GDP in infrastructure. Here in the United States, we are investing somewhere around 2 percent. Figures vary--2.2, 2.1, 2 percent. I think Brazil invested over $240 billion in its infrastructure in the last 3 years, and the Brazilian economy is growing in double digits. North Korea, Mexico, Brazil, China, India, all growing in double digits, and the United States is stuck in this recession, maybe just breaking out of it, but with very uneven growth. The infrastructure bank is geared to fill a void in our investment abilities in this country. Again, Senators know we are not going to invest billions of dollars of appropriated money--taxpayer dollars-- because of the competition we have in our discretionary funds now because of the way we are heading in terms of the fiscal cliff and debt cliff and because of the challenge of the rising costs in health care and entitlements. We don't have that money. While we get control of those components of our economy, we need to be investing in the infrastructure of our Nation and putting people back to work. We need to invest in highways, roads, bridges, mass transit, inland waterways, commercial ports, airports, air traffic control systems, passenger rail, including high-speed rail and freight rail systems, and the water sector. We can invest in wastewater treatment facilities, storm water management systems, dams, drinking water treatment facilities, levees, and open space management systems. In the energy sector, we need transmission in America. We need an energy grid that is modern. We need distribution, storage, energy enhancements for buildings, public and commercial. There is an extraordinary amount of work to be done--if we decide to do it. Hundreds of billions of dollars is sitting on the side lines right now. It could come in and help us with these projects. The infrastructure bank is precisely the entity that will bring that private capital to the table so that it is the Chinese who are investing in an American infrastructure project that they cannot take back to China; it is here in America. It improves our lives, but it gives them a return on investment for the money they put on the line in a deal, which, frankly, is the kind of deal that will produce the sort of long-term, patient capital investment that I think a lot of people are going to be turning to given the nature of the financial turmoil we see going on in the world today. We are in a competitive race with other countries to attract this private equity investment. An infrastructure bank could help us put that money to work here at home. Some people say: Senator, why do you need the infrastructure bank to do this if these deals are so attractive? Why doesn't the money come and they will invest it anyway and so forth? It doesn't work that way for a number of reasons. First of all, our financial institutions have not developed a long-term infrastructure-lending business. We don't have that in this country the way other banks in other parts of the world do. If you look at a major American infrastructure transaction over the last few years, guess what. Non-U.S. banks--mostly Australian and European--are the ones providing most of the financing. They are doing it at an average of 20 to 1--20 parts by the non-U.S. banks, the European and Australian banks, and 1 part U.S. investment. Given the troubles the European sovereign market has today, I think it is going to be a very long time before we see a lot of European banks looking to invest over here. Maybe I am wrong. The lack of investing by our institutions is not because the investment is too risky. The problem is that for a very long time, the vast majority of American infrastructure has been financed through the municipal bond market, the rest largely through Federal grants, which I have said are now under pressure. So there has been no need for large bank lending to be created. As we all know, large bank lending--that market just doesn't happen overnight. The municipal bond market also relies principally on small retail investors for most of its funding. Because of the way it is designed, it can't access large global pools of capital or, for that matter, pension funds. Pension funds are prohibited from investing in those bonds. The municipal bond market is not well-suited to fund large, cross- State, cross-boundary projects, so we need something else. That something else is this kind of infrastructure bank, with all of the very strict limits that have been put into place to keep it from reaching too far. It doesn't cost a lot of money--$10 billion of startup funding. It becomes self-financing. Every loan is a loan that can be repaid because they rely on sources of revenue that are among the most dependable sources of revenue in the marketplace--from energy projects that sell electricity, and you have a pretty regular stream of buyers for that. You have a pretty regular stream of people who need water in their homes and pay for the water. All of these revenue streams--the tolls on bridges, for instance, and these others--have a certainty and longevity to them that make these kinds of deals very attractive. I say to my colleagues that one of the silver linings of this kind of infrastructure investment is this: For every $1 billion, the Federal Highway Administration tells us you will create, I think, 30,000 jobs. The range of jobs, depending on whom you listen to, goes from about 20,000 to 35,000. Let's say it is 20,000 jobs per billion. People say this bank investment of $10 billion can leverage more than $\1/2\ trillion--$500 billion--of investment, so you are talking 20 million jobs over the course of perhaps 10 years. I think there are so many compelling reasons for engaging this. Europe has an infrastructure bank. We have State infrastructure banks, but the State infrastructure banks don't have the advantage this bank has of being able to do transboundary, cross-State deals. They also don't have the advantage of having a discount on the lending component coming through the Treasury Department of the Federal component of this--done, as I said, under the strictest fiduciary standards. Only 50 percent of any project can be lending. The rest has to be equity and has to be invested by the other investors in the deal. It could be a combination of investors, but they need to invest. I close by saying that a modern infrastructure is really the lifeblood of our economy. I don't know how many of my colleagues have taken the Acela to New York, but it is a train that has the ability to go 150 miles an hour. It only goes 150 miles an hour between here and New York for about 18 miles of the trip because you cannot go fast under the Baltimore tunnel because vibrations might cause it to fall in. You cannot go fast over the bridges of the Chesapeake because the train will wind up in the Chesapeake. This is absurd. Many of us have had the pleasure of having a train ride in China. I rode recently from Beijing to Tianjin--a trip that used to take 8 to 10 hours takes 29 minutes. You are going 200 miles an hour. The water on your table is barely jiggling during the entire ride. It is an extraordinary accomplishment. They are building something like 55,000 miles of that kind of high-speed rail system over there, as they spend their 9 percent of GDP on infrastructure. We can do better. The United States of America can do better. We know that. We are the country that had invention and building construction in our DNA, the country that went to the Moon and developed these extraordinary technologies that connect human beings around the world instantaneously. I am convinced that if we put this infrastructure bank together, all of a sudden the United States will attract capital, create jobs, modernize our economy, and have benefits that spill out all across our Nation. I hope our colleagues will get rid of the politics and embrace this idea, which is long overdue. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I thank my friend from Oregon. Nobody works harder on building coalitions than the Senator from Oregon. He has done a superb job on health care and tax policy, so those words mean a lot. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. If the time is not about to be used, it will be tallied?

Mr. KERRY. I suggest we yield it back mutually or someone speaks.

Mr. KERRY. I am always in favor of extending courtesies. I think it is important to do that. But I would just reserve, if I can, therefore, that we might wait until the Senator is here and have those 2 minutes used at that time. I will suggest the absence of a quorum until the Senator is here, at which time we will have 2 minutes equally divided.

Mr. KERRY. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are where in the legislative process now?