John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 3, 2001, at a time to be determined, to hold a business meeting. The committee will consider and vote on the following matters: Nominees: Mr. Robert W. Jordan of Texas, to be Ambassador to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Committee Organization: Approval of the creation of the Subcommittee on Central Asia and South Caucasus, as follows: Membership Robert G. Torricelli, Chairman Joseph R. Biden, Jr. John F. Kerry Paul D. Wellstone Barbara Boxer

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 3, 2001, at 11 a.m., to hear testimony on the need for an economic stimulus package and if one is needed, potential components.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, October 3, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing. The Committee will receive testimony on the nominations of Jeffrey D. Jarrett to be Director of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Department of the Interior, and Harold Craig Manson to be Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife, Department of the Interior.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I understand and respect that very much from the Senator, and I thank him for his generous comments. I also remind colleagues that we are not relinquishing our right to continue to monitor, as we should, human rights in Vietnam or in any country. This is not permanent trade relations status. This is annual trade relations. What we are granting is normal trade relations status that must be reviewed annually as required by the Jackson-Vanik amendment. This annual review will allow us to continue to monitor Vietnam's human rights performance. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my colleague, I certainly have respect for and appreciate his concern about a local industry, but I think, as I said to Senator Hutchinson, this is a matter of labeling, it is a matter of regulatory process. It is not a question of whether or not you improve the overall agreement. I also say to my colleague-- he may not be aware of it--obviously, the People's Army Daily, the Army, are the hardliners. And there is a struggle going on in Vietnam between the reformers and the hardliners, as there are in many countries that are trying to deal with this kind of process of change. That statement by the Army colonel is not representative of the Government. I would like to share with all my colleagues that the President of Vietnam, the very next day after the terrorist attack, sent this message to the United States: The government and people of Vietnam were shocked by the tragedy that happened on the morning of 11 September 2001. We would like to convey to the government and people of the United States, especially the victims' families, our profound condolences. Consistently, Vietnam protests against terrorist acts that bring deaths and sufferings to civilians. This is the comment I received from the Foreign Minister: Your Excellency Mr. Senator, I was extremely shocked and deeply moved by the tragedy happening in the United States on the 11 September 2001 morning. I would like to extend to you, and through you, to the families of the victims, my deepest condolences. I am confident that the U.S. Government and people will soon overcome this difficult moment. We strongly condemn the terrorist attack and are willing to work closely with the United States and other countries in the fight against terrorist acts. This is a media report from the German press, Deutsche Presse. This is from Hanoi: American businesspeople, aid workers, and embassy officials said Wednesday they have been overwhelmed with the amount of support and sympathy offered by Vietnamese over last week's devastating terrorist attacks in the United States. While Vietnam's normally reserved state media has confined its expressions of sorrow to an announcement by President Duc Luong, personal reactions by Vietnamese have been deep and heartfelt. ``There has been a real outpouring of sympathy,'' said a spokesman at the U.S. Consulate in Ho Chi Minh city, the former Saigon. Bouquets of flowers were left at the building's entrance, while locals and expatriates lined up last week to sign a condolence book. Similar acts were played out at the embassy in Hanoi where senior Vietnamese officials and contacts paid their respects. There have been reports of some U.S. firms receiving donations from Vietnamese for families of the victims in the United States. So I really think we have to recognize that the transition for the military is obviously slower and far more complicated, as it is with the People's Liberation Army in China, versus what the leadership is trying to do as they bring their own country along. I really think we need to take recognition of these facts. The fact is, there is participation in religious activities in Vietnam that continues to grow. Churches are full. I have been to church in Vietnam. They are full on days of worship and days of remembrance. Is it more controlled than we would like it? Yes. Has it changed. Yes? Is it continuing to change? Yes. I think we should also recognize that last year some 500 cases were adjudicated by labor courts. And there were 72 strikes last year, and more than 450 strikes in Vietnam since 1993. So even within the labor movement there has been an increasing empowerment of workers, and there has been change. Are things in Vietnam as we would want them to be tomorrow? The answer is no. But have they made progress well beyond other countries with whom we trade? You bet they have. Is their human rights record even better than the Chinese? Yes, it is. We need to take cognizance of these things. Let me correct one statement of the Senator from New Hampshire. I am not alone in objecting to this particular attempt to try to bring the human rights bill to the floor in conjunction with action on the trade agreement. I am for having a human rights statement at the appropriate time. This is not the appropriate time. There are Senators on both sides of the aisle and a broad-based group of Senators who believe this is not the moment and the place for this particular separate piece of legislation. At some point in the future, we would be happy to consider it under the normal legislative process. I respect the comments of the Senator, but I hope we will take notice of the official recognition that has come from Vietnam with respect to the terrorist attacks on the United States.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank Armed Services Committee Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Warner for their assistance on this amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002. My amendment, cosponsored by Senator Bond, will help small businesses more effectively compete for large and/or bundled contracts. Everyone knows that small businesses are vital to the U.S. economy, accounting for 99 percent of all private sector employers, providing 75 percent of all net new jobs, and accounting for 51 percent of private- sector output. But what many of my colleagues may not realize is the vital role small businesses play in providing competition and innovation to our Federal procurement system. In fact, a major reason for the creation of the Small Business Administration was to ensure an adequate private sector base for the Department of Defense. It was actually deemed in our national security interests to have a thriving small business sector. And this has not changed, it is actually more important than ever, not just to our national security, but to our economic security as well. The amendment is based on our legislation, the ``Small Business Procurement Competition Act of 2001,'' and begins with one simple premise that has been proven time and again, when it comes to large Federal contracts, small businesses are at a competitive disadvantage because of the amounts of money involved and the large geographic areas these contracts may serve. The practice known as contract bundling, whereby separate procurement contracts are combined into one contract, has resulted in small businesses that do business with the Federal Government being placed at an even greater disadvantage. Unfortunately, procurement streamlining has resulted in the practice of contract bundling becoming more and more common. In fact, for Fiscal Year 2000, the Federal Government failed to meet its goal of 23 percent of Federal prime contracts being awarded to small businesses. Many experts blame the inability of small businesses to compete on large bundled contracts as a key factor in this decline. For example, the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy believes that for every $100 awarded on a bundled contract, there was a decrease of $33 to small businesses. The Small Business Procurement Competition Act that has been included in this bill will address this decline in two ways. First, it draws on an existing principle known as ``joint ventures'' and expands the ability of small businesses to form them. Second, it raises the percentage of contracts that a small business can subcontract to other small businesses. Joint ventures, whereby small businesses can team together to bid on a bundled contract, even if the combined entity is too large to be considered a small business, is not a new concept. In fact, the Clinton Administration began to remove some of the obstacles to the formation of joint ventures. Our amendment takes this initiative, cements it into law, and makes several improvements to help and encourage the formation of joint ventures. Many small businesses have said that they like the idea of being able to team with other small businesses to compete on bundled contracts, but they often don't know where to begin. Worse, many small businesses have said that, despite U.S. law, many contracts that should be considered bundled contracts are not, which has limited their ability to form joint ventures. To combat these deficiencies, our amendment allows for the formation of a small business-only joint venture to bid on any contract over the amount of $5 million, regardless of whether or not the contract is bundled. To combat the knowledge gap on this issue, our legislation requires that the Small Business Administration, SBA, set up a database of companies that are actively seeking to form joint ventures. The legislation also sets up a pilot program requiring the SBA to conduct outreach and education efforts to small businesses that want to form joint ventures. Joint ventures are not the only means to help small businesses compete for bundled contracts. Our amendment also changes the subcontracting requirements for small businesses. Under current law, a small business must perform at least 51 percent of the work on a contract to maintain its small business eligibility. Under our provision, a small business can subcontract up to 2/3 of the work to other small businesses on bundled contract, provided the prime small business contractor performs the greatest proportion of the work. In this way, small businesses can bid on larger contracts that they do not have the capacity to perform on their own. Small businesses are vital to the economic growth of the U.S. economy. Their innovations, the competition they provide and the jobs they create are just some of the reasons we must ensure the success of our small businesses. Taken together, these provisions will help small businesses by providing them with more opportunities to compete for Federal contracts and help maintain the national supply chain. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have made it a priority to ensure small businesses receive their fair share of Federal procurement contracts. This legislation is an important step in fulfilling that promise. I would also like to thank Senator Bond for his work on another amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which I am a cosponsor of, to make some changes to the procurement provisions pertaining to small business in this legislation. I believe it is an important amendment and I am pleased we were able to get it included in the bill. Once again, I would like to thank Senator Bond for joining me in this effort, as well as Senator Levin and Senator Warner for their assistance and their courtesy. Amendment No. 1695

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to urge passage of H.R. 1860, the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act of 2001. H.R. 1860 passed the House of Representatives on September 24, 2001. This bill is a companion to my bill, cosponsored by Ranking Member Kit Bond, S. 856 which passed the Senate unanimously on September 13, 2001. This legislation reauthorizes the Small Business Administration's highly successful Small Business Technology Transfer Program for an additional eight years and doubles its size. Absent legislative action to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer program, it will expire on September 30, 2001. The STTR program funds research and development, R&D, projects performed jointly by small companies and research institutions as an incentive to advance the government's research and development goals. It complements the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, program, which was reauthorized last year. The SBIR program funds R&D projects at small companies. STTR funds R&D projects between a small company and a research institution, such as a university or a Federally funded R&D lab. STTR projects help participating agencies achieve their goals in the research and development arena. It also helps convert the billions of dollars invested in research and development at our nation's universities, Federal laboratories and non-profit research institutions into new commercial technologies. The STTR program was started in 1992. The program was reauthorized in 1997 for four years. The program is funded out of the extramural R&D budgets of Federal agencies or departments with extramural R&D budgets of $1 billion or more. Such agencies must award at least .15 percent of that money for STTR projects. This bill increases program funding to .3 percent of that money for STTR programs in FY 2004 and thereafter. Five agencies currently participate in the STTR program: the Department of Defense, DoD, the National Institutes of Health, NIH, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, NASA, the National Science Foundation, NSF, and the Department of Energy, DoE. There are three phases of the STTR program. Phase I is a one-year award for $100,000, and its purpose is to determine the scientific and commercial merits of an idea. Phase II is a two-year grant for $500,000, and its purpose is to further develop the idea. In FY 2004 and thereafter this bill increases Phase II awards to $750,000. Phase III is used to pursue commercial applications of the idea and cannot be funded with STTR funds. I thank my friend from Missouri, Senator Bond and his staff and all of the Members of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee for working with me and my staff on this important legislation. I would also like to recognize the cooperation and support from the House Small Business Committee, Chairman Don Manzullo, Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, Subcommittee Chairman Roscoe Bartlett and their staffs as well as Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Minority Member Hall and their staffs on the House Science Committee for their work on this legislation. Mr. President, I ask the Senate to pass H.R. 1860.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee for his leadership on this issue over a number of years. It has been almost 10 years that the Senate in committee has been advocating at many levels the notion of the federalizing of airport security. I guess it is part of the nature of all Members not to mention just the nature of our politics, that sometimes things of good common sense don't happen for inertia, for indifference, for other interests that weigh in, until there is a tragedy such as we experienced a week ago. The Senator from South Carolina has talked for a moment about the issue of the finances of our airlines. I emphasize that we obviously need to do something and do it fast. But that something has to be smart. That something has to recognize the distinction between the airline industry that existed on September 10 and the airline industry that was impacted on September 11 and what happens as a consequence there of. It is clear that prior to September 11, the airline industry was already experiencing a significant downturn in passengers and ridership because of the state of the economy. That has now been exacerbated a hundredfold. I say to my fellow Americans today as forcefully as I can, there is no reason not to fly in an airplane in the continental United States or to fly out of the United States in today's system. There really isn't. That system is safer than the air system has been in years. The scrutiny level already in our airports today is significantly higher than it has ever been. The level of safety today as a result of the redundancy of checks and the level of concern by air marshals and State police, local police, and others is raised to the highest level it has ever been in our country. It is safe to fly in aircraft in the United States today. It may be that some people in this country would deem most of those in Washington expendable anyway, but if it is any consolation, Senators, Congressmen, and others are flying those planes now, and the American public should not hesitate to do so. Here is also a truth, a reality. We can do things that create almost a fail-safe capacity, that raise the scrutiny level often further in order to establish an even greater level of confidence notwithstanding that what we are doing today is the greatest level of scrutiny we have ever had. That is what brings the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Hollings, Mr. McCain, myself, and others to the floor today to introduce an airport security bill that will, in fact, raise the level to the point where there is no excuse for anybody having any fear or any sense of dread about flying. How do we do that? Let me remind people that what happened last Tuesday was not high technology, nor was it even force at the end of a gun barrel or a bomb that had somehow gone through and evaded security. In fact, everything that was used as a weapon was used within the permissiveness of the system as it existed then. It wasn't as if somebody walked through security and had a weapon that wasn't detected. What these terrorists evidently did was use terror in a low-tech way as effectively and as deviously, as hideously, as any of us could ever have imagined; using a box cutter, using a minimalist kind of weapon, they managed to terrorize flight attendants and terrorize passengers who, up until that point in time, had an understanding of hijacking that you sort of behave. You try not to unsettle the hijackers. In fact, the tapes that were used by the flight attendants were 1970 tapes, a 1-hour tape that taught them to try to calm the hijackers and perhaps persuade them to seek political asylum, or at least not to harm the passengers while they took them to Cuba or took them to some other country. What we learned on September 11 was that now there is a completely different strategy that we now know people are willing to employ. Someone is willing to commit suicide and try to take over an airplane and use it as a weapon. The task now is to make certain that no one can again use an airplane as a weapon. I again point out that, in an act of absolutely extraordinary heroism, three American citizens who were informed of the change in tactic, who were told by loved ones on the ground that the planes prior to them had been used as weapons, understood the new equation. They understood that they were faced with the potential of imminent death and, if that was true, they were going to take matters into their own hands. I think that forever changes the equation with respect to the potential of an aircraft again being used as a directable weapon by someone moving into the cockpit, taking over and actually flying the aircraft, using it as an instrument with specific targeting. It may well be that through some extraordinary lapse, even after all the security measures, although it is hard to imagine how that might be if we do our jobs properly, someone might be able to terrorize passengers. But they could walk into any restaurant anytime, anywhere and do that. They could walk into any mosque, any church, any synagogue--they could walk into any place where crowds gather and, if they were willing to die, tragically they would have the ability to wreak havoc and chaos and mayhem in the area of their choice. But we have the ability to do something to make it safe to fly, beyond any doubts whatsoever, beyond what I think is the extraordinary level of safety that exists today. One of the things that would give greater confidence to our fellow citizens is the awareness that all across this country there is a standardized, uniform system by which people are being screened as they come to an airport, not some individual company in Boston and a different company in New York and a different company in another city with different supervisors and no accountability across the board except to those particular airports and to some Federal standard which is not applied in a Federal way. It seems to me we could guarantee that safety. A lot of people in America are not aware of it, but the turnover rate of the current employment of those security operators is simply unacceptable: in some places 100-percent turnover, 200-percent, 300-percent turnover within the span of a year. And that is even among supervisors. If we federalize the process we not only have the opportunity to hire people at a decent wage, to guarantee the continuity, to guarantee the level of supervision, but we also will have an ability to do one of the most critical things now. We recognize that airport security is also a matter of national security. If it is a matter of national security, then those airport personnel have to work within a system that has the ability to share information that comes from law enforcement, information that comes from national security--the CIA, NSA, FBI, Defense Department. If someone is on a watch list or if someone is a frequent flier with patterns that raise suspicion because of those prior trips and travels--which, incidentally, do show up in your passport check when you come through INS, and you can begin to make those determinations but there is no such similar kind of cross-tabulation or verification in the processing of passengers' manifests and flights--in a virtual world where we have computers at our fingertips with instantaneous communication of the Internet, shame on us for not having a system that has that kind of cross-pollination between our law enforcement agencies and security agencies across the Nation. This is now a matter of law enforcement and national security. The only way to raise the airport security issue to that level is to federalize the process. We are here to talk about how we are going to bail out or help the airlines. The airlines pay $1 billion a year for their security costs. So if the Federal Government indeed takes over those security costs, we are automatically reducing the burden of $1 billion a year or more, under increased status, from the airlines. Given that the airlines are working, hopefully, for profit and this affects the profit line, and therefore affects the kind of bids and expenses they are willing to put out in it, we should guarantee to Americans that security at our airports is not going to be subject to the bottom line of an industry that is already in difficulties. It is going to be subject only to the judgment of our public officials about what offers the greatest level of security. In the legislation that Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member McCain and I and others on the committee are offering today, we are suggesting the establishment of a Deputy Administrator at the FAA for airport security. We establish an Aviation Security Council with the FAA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense, and the CIA, to coordinate national security intelligence and aviation security information and make recommendations. We require the strengthening of cockpit doors and locks with limited access to the cockpit so every passenger who boards an aircraft will know that unless it is at the choice of the pilots, no person will enter that cockpit from the time they leave the gate until the time they arrive at their destination. We increase the number of Federal air marshals so people will know that while riding an aircraft, particularly those with the greatest potential of diversion, they would be protected by the use of Federal air marshals riding in the air with them. We federalize the overall airport security operations, providing improved training and testing for screening personnel. We improve the screening procedures for passengers, checking passengers' names against a coordinated list comprised of criminal, national security, intelligence, and INS information. I might add, the INS component is a critical component in the context of security. We will provide new and modern hijack training for flight crews based on what we now understand to be the threat. We perform background checks on students at flight schools. We increase perimeter security at airports and air traffic facilities, and we authorize the funds to carry out these initiatives. Let me echo what has been said here previously. We can pass a bill that provides funding for the airlines through these next weeks. But we need the passengers of this country to come back to those airlines. I reiterate, I am convinced--I know the Senator from Florida is; he has flown commercially in the last days, as have others--this airline system is safe to fly today. But to whatever degree our fellow citizens doubt that, we need to guarantee they will come back to those airports to ride the aircraft that we empower to fly. Nothing is more important to revitalize the car rental industry, the restaurants, the hotels, the entertainment industry, the travel industry--all those ancillary spinoff industries that depend on people flying the aircraft of our various entities in this country. I believe this legislation, while we will not vote on it today, is imperative to move on as rapidly as the legislation that we are moving on today with the hopes that we will be able to guarantee to every one of our citizens the full assurance of every level of safety that they expect. I hope we will do that as rapidly as possible. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that we speak alternatively, from side to side.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, is my understanding correct that we will go back and forth, side to side?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we cannot undo the grave events that took place on Tuesday or bring back the loved ones that so many families have lost or quickly restore the sense of security that Americans took for granted. But with resolve and determination we can take actions to root out those who perpetrated these dastardly and heretofore unimaginable events. There should be no question in the minds of those who are responsible for these attacks, or in the minds of those who have aided and abetted them, that the United States will take all necessary and appropriate steps to respond and to prevent them from undertaking additional attacks against our country. In keeping with our very values that were under attack this week, we must respond rationally and judiciously, not out of anger and sadness. This resolution leaves no doubt that the Congress is united in full support of the President. We have given the President the authority that he needs to respond to this unprecedented attack on American citizens on U.S. soil. This resolution allows the President to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or individuals who are responsible for this attack and against those who helped or harbored them. But it does not give the President a blanket approval to take military action against others under the guise of fighting international terrorism. It is not an open-ended authorization to use force in circumstances beyond those we face today. Under the Constitution the President has the authority to act if there is an imminent attack on the United States. That authority is recognized in this resolution. The tragedy our Nation experienced this week brought home to every American the reality of terrorism. Now we must respond. That response must be forceful and unequivocal. I am confident it will be.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to urge passage of S. 856, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Reauthorization Act of 2001. This legislation reauthorizes the Small Business Administration's highly successful Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program for an additional eight years. Absent legislative action to reauthorize the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) program, it will expire on September 30, 2001. On July 19, 2001, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Committee) considered S. 856, the Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Program Reauthorization Act of 2001, unanimously reported the bill and recommended its passage. This legislation also makes changes to the STTR program to facilitate more effective collaboration between small businesses and research institutions. The STTR program funds research and development (R&D) projects performed jointly by small companies and research institutions as an incentive to advance the nation's technological progress and the government's research and development goals. It complements the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program, which was reauthorized last year. Whereas the SBIR program funds R&D projects at small companies, STTR funds cooperative R&D projects between a small company and a research institution, such as a university or a Federally funded R&D lab. Like SBIR R&D projects, STTR projects help participating agencies achieve their missions in the research and development arena. It was also designed to convert the billions of dollars invested in research and development at our nation's universities. Federal laboratories and non-profit research institutions into new commercial technologies. The STTR program was started as a pilot in 1992, and the first grants were made in 1994. The program was reauthorized in 1997 for four years. The program is not funded out of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) budget, but out of the extramural R&D budgets of Federal agencies or departments with extramural R&D budgets of $1 billion or more. Such agencies must award at least .15 percent of that money for STTR projects. Five agencies currently qualify: the Department of Defense (DoD); the National Institutes of Health (NIH); the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Science Foundation (NSF); and the Department of Energy (DoE). There are three phases of the program. Phase I is a one-year grant for $100,000, and its purpose is to determine the scientific and commercial merits of an idea. Phase II is a two-year grant for $500,000, and its purpose is to further develop the idea. Phase III is used to pursue commercial applications of the idea and cannot be funded with STTR funds. Only private-sector and non-STTR Federal funds may be used in Phase III. At the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship hearing on S. 856 we heard from Dr. Anthony N. Pirri, Director of the Division of Technology Transfer at Northeastern University in Boston, Mass.; Mr. Clifford C. Hoyt, Vice President and Chief Technology Officer of Cambridge Research and Instrumentation in Woburn, Mass.; Dr. Barna Szabo, Founder and Chairman of Engineering Software Research and Development Inc. in St. Louis, Mo.; Mr. Kirk Ririe, President and CEO of Idaho Technology, Inc. in Salt Lake City, Utah; Mr. Maurice Swinton, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Technology at the Small Business Administration; and Mr. Jim Wells, Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the General Accounting Office. There was consensus that the program is meeting its objectives, should be continued, and the Phase II award amount should be increased. Examples were given of technological advances which improved industries, grew businesses, created jobs and more than returned the Federal government's investment. One comment, in particular, from Mr. Kirk Ririe of Idaho Technology Inc., which started modestly in a potato shed and now has locations in Idaho and Utah, demonstrates the power of the STTR program: We were a tiny company--six people working with the university group. We were able to, within two years, launch (with about $100,000 in funding) a product that basically filled a hole in biotechnology research and development . . . that has gone on to generate over $100 million in sales . . . The GAO figures may not [reflect this, but] I guarantee that we have paid a lot more money back to the government in taxes than we received in any of the funding . . . The program has been absolutely crucial to us. If we had not had this program, we would still be in the potato shed . . . At the request of the Chairman and Ranking member of the Committee, GAO surveyed all companies which had received Phase II awards from 1995 to 1997. GAO chose these years because they were the first years of the program and it generally takes three to nine years for a company to progress from basic research of a concept to commercialization of a developed product. Though this program is still relatively young, the survey results indicate it is working effectively. Of the 102 companies participating in the survey, 53.5 percent had either commercialized the technology or received follow-on funding for the technology. These companies had approximately $132 million in sales and $53 million in additional funding. These STTR winners expect additional sales of more than $90 million dollars by 2005. Putting this into perspective, the Government's total awards to these companies were less than $60 million, less than half of the sales to date and about five percent of the expected sales by 2005. While S. 856 as reported reauthorized the program for nine years, the Manager's amendment reduces this to eight years. This was done in order to reach consensus promptly and enable the bill to pass both houses-- before the expiration date of the program. In FY2004 and thereafter the bill increases from .15 to .3 percent of Federal extramural research and development funds going to this program. Recently the program was made $65 million annually for STTR awards. Based on that amount, increasing the percentage to .3 percent would make $130 million available annually for small business technology transfer. The Committee originally reported language that would have increased the percentage to .5 percent in 2007. In order to reach consensus, we agreed to delete the final incremental increase from the bill until we have more experience and information. The bill also raises the Phase II grant award amount from $500,000 to $750,000. This change was intended to address concerns by the small businesses and the research institutions that $500,000 typically is no longer enough for this stage of research and development. As Dr. Pirri of Northeastern said at the hearing, ``By expanding the STTR program, funding levels will become more adequate to take technologies through the prototype stage and increase their probability of commercial success.'' Raising Phase II STTR awards to $750,000 makes them consistent with the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program's Phase II awards. GAO reported that only about 250 universities have participated in the program so far. The Committee believes, and GAO concurs, that there is tremendous potential to involve more universities in partnering with small businesses to convert research into new technologies. One of the goals of the STTR program is to create economic development around universities, Federal laboratories and non-profit research institutions across the country are attempting to duplicate the successful clusters similarly developed along Massachusetts' Route 128 and in California's Silicon Valley. In order to increase participation by a larger number of universities, S. 856 includes a provision encouraging the STTR agencies to reach out to universities to raise awareness of the program and to provide information to their faculty members. S. 856 also strengthens the data rights protection for companies and research institutions that conduct STTR projects. The change in data rights is important because it clarifies that STTR companies, like SBIR companies, retain the data rights to their technology through all phases of a STTR project. Unfortunately some agencies have been interpreting the law to mean that STTR companies only retain their data rights through Phases I and II. This clarification helps protect STTR companies from losing control of their research so that they have a greater chance of commercializing their technology themselves. This clarification is important because the Committee has learned some agencies are providing the data to bigger contractors for development, thereby cutting out the small business. This unfortunate situation not only robs small businesses of revenues, but it also results in expensive legal costs for small businesses to protect their data rights. As last year's legislation did for the SBIR program, this bill strengthens the data collection requirements regarding awards and the data rights for companies and research institutions that conduct STTR projects. The goal is to collect better information about the companies doing the projects, as well as the research and development, so we can measure success and track technologies. The Manager's amendment expands the reporting requirements to include reporting on HUBZones small businesses under the SBIR and STTR programs. The amendment also requires the SBA and the agencies to develop a model agreement for intellectual property rights. Finally, the Manager's amendment includes a provision that requires SBA, when considering proposals under the recently enacted Federal and State Technology Partnership Program (FAST), to consider whether the proposals address the needs of small business concerns: (I) owned and controlled by women; (II) owned and controlled by minorities; and (III) concerns located in areas that have historically not participated in the SBIR and STTR Programs. This bill will ensure that this successful program is continued and expanded. It will also provide Congress with important information and data on the program and encourage more outreach to small businesses and research institutions. Mr. President, I want to encourage my colleagues to learn about this program, to find out the benefits to their state's hi-tech small business, research universities and labs, and to join me in passing this legislation in the Senate. To my friend from Missouri, Senator Bond, I want to thank you and your staff for working with me and my staff to build this country's technological progress. I especially want to thank one member of Senator Bond's staff, David Bohley. Dave has worked tirelessly and effectively for the technology and small business community. He is leaving the Committee, and we will all miss working with him. I wish him well in his new job at the Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA). I also want to thank all of the members of the Committee for their work on this legislation and for helping small business. All 19 members of the Committee voted for and supported this legislation. Mr. President, I urge the Senate to pass S. 856, as amended.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate voted in favor of an amendment I offered with Senators Bond and Collins to increase funding for the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers program from $12 million to $13.7 million, by using some additional funds from the Agency's Salaries and Expenses account. I thank all my colleagues for their support of this important resource for women around the country who are working for economic independence and working to provide jobs and opportunities for others in their communities. Today is not the first time the Women's Business Centers have been supported from both sides of the aisle. On April 6th, the full Senate agreed by voice vote to a similar amendment Senator Bond and I offered to the Senate Budget Resolution. Like today's amendment, that amendment, Amendment No. 183, increased the funding for Women's Business Centers from $12 million to $13.7 million. I am encouraged by our ability to work together and reinforce the good work of the Women's Business Centers. When a Center trains an entrepreneur, she knows how to approach a lender for a loan, knows how to manage her business, and understands the hows and whys of marketing. Let me give you two examples of women who sought assistance from the Women's Business Center in Boston, the Center for Women & Enterprise. Nancy Engel went from struggling to raise her family on public assistance to owning her own mail order and catalog company and creating four jobs. She not only helped herself, but has shared her better fortune by employing other mothers who have the flexibility to make it home in time to meet their kids at the school bus. And then there's Sarah Byrne--a computer specialist who lost her job. Fed up with being at the mercy of a big company, she launched her own computer company, Complete Communications. With the help of CWE, Sarah has grown her company in Wakefield, Massachusetts, to about 14 employees. I think it's remarkable that the program opened its first 12 centers in 1989 and today women have access to training and counseling at almost 100 sites. I also think it's remarkable that over the past decade the number of women-owned businesses operating in this country has grown by 103 percent to an estimated 9.1 million firms, generating $3.6 trillion in sales annually, while employing more than 27.5 million workers. I want to encourage this trend. In closing, I want to thank Senator Hollings and his staff for all of their help and support of not only this amendment but for the Small Business Administration in general. Again, I thank all my colleagues for voting in favor of this amendment, and Senators Bond and Collins for offering this amendment with me. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be included in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. Madam President, never in the time I have been here--and perhaps in the modern history of the Senate--has any of us come to the floor with such a weight as today, with our hearts literally heavy and aching with the pain of what we have witnessed and what we know so many families are experiencing today, and also with a sense of outrage at the loss of every innocent citizen and every single person who went to work expecting a normal day, every police officer who put themselves into harm's way, every fireman who tried to save a life and lost their own, and at the astonishing number of their loss with the experience of a breach in their special brotherhood and sisterhood that can never be healed, the loss of emergency personnel. These losses are felt by all of us in a very special, personal, and searing way. It is also fair to say that all of us have a deep feeling of outrage and resentment for the killing of our innocent citizens, for the attack against our country, for the fear and panic we saw in the faces and voices of our people; children crying; parents, wives, brothers, sons, and daughters waiting for word. Yesterday I was on the phone to the husband and daughter of a woman-- a friend--lost in the second flight to penetrate the World Trade Center. The pain and depth of loss in their voices was excruciating. And the helplessness to do anything but to share that pain and offer comfort brought an even deeper sense of anger and resolve for the acts that occurred. But it is also critical that all of us remember, as we talk about responses, and war against terrorism, that our rhetoric be matched by our actions. If indeed there is a war against terrorism, I remind my colleagues that in a war the first shots are never the last, the first strike is never the worst. What happened yesterday was terrible and horrendous, but we must prepare ourselves and steel ourselves for the possibility of worse until we achieve our goal. And to do that we have to be more prepared than we are today, and we have to take the fight wherever we need to, and in ways that we are, frankly, not yet prepared. I will say, from personal experience, when you are in a war, you do not throw money at the enemy; it's bullets or other actions that are real. We cannot guarantee that some fanatic is not going to find a way to upset civilized order. But we can guarantee that anyone facilitating or associated with such an act will pay the highest price. There are few organizations that could achieve what happened yesterday. We know who they are. We know who supports them. We should demand that those people cooperate with us in turning them over to us. Finally, it is important for the world to see that we will go back immediately to the business of a great democracy. We must--all of us-- be back at the work of our Nation. We must show that our effort to build a better country goes on, the mission of educating our children for full citizenship goes on, the job of making our country stronger goes on. I believe one of the first things we should commit to as a country, with Federal help, that underscores our Nation's purpose, is to rebuild the towers of the World Trade Center and to show the world that we are not afraid; we are defiant. To those who might say, ``why create another target?'' The answer is simple: If we are indeed at war with terrorism, there is no shortage of targets in the United States. There is a White House, and a Capitol, and countless other tall buildings. This is not a question of targets; it is a question of strength and of our national resolve to stand up and show our strength. That is the best monument we could build to those who died yesterday. In Massachusetts, Madam President, we particularly grieve and feel the full measure of what happened yesterday. Two of those flights came out of our airport. Many of those people on those flights--the vast majority of them--came from our State. So to all of those who currently await word or those who know because of the nature of the flights, we extend our deepest condolences and we grieve together as citizens of Massachusetts and of this great country. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by our Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Hollings in this effort. This bill is designed to improve the management and research activities for right whales and increase the focus on reducing mortality caused by ship collisions, entanglement in fishing gear, and other causes. The most endangered of the great whales, the northern Atlantic right whale has shown no evidence of recovery since the whaling days of the 1900s despite full protection from hunting by a League of Nations agreement since 1935. Today the population of North Atlantic Right Whales remains at less than 350 animals, although 2001 was a banner year for reproduction as over 30 calves were born. The entire Nation has watched with great interest as a team of experts from a number of organizations including the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Aquarium and the Center for Coastal Studies has sought to remove the nylon rope that is imbedded in the jaw of a North Atlantic Right Whale, dubbed ``Churchill''. By all accounts, unless the rope is removed the whale is likely to die from infections that are already discoloring the whale's skin. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation for all of these efforts to date and I hope that by offering this legislation today that we can refocus our attention on how to protect these magnificent mammals. Right whales are at risk of extinction from a number of sources. These include, ship strikes, the number one source of known right whale fatalities, entanglement in fishing gear, coastal pollution, habitat degradation, ocean noise and climate change. This legislation requires the Secretary of Commerce to institute a North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Program, in coordination with the Department of Transportation and other appropriate Federal agencies, States, the Southeast and Northeast Northern Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, pursuant to the authority provided under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This legislation would require the Secretary of Commerce within 6 months of enactment, to initiate demonstration projects designed to result in the immediate reductions in North Atlantic right whale deaths. There are 4 distinct areas that I believe we should be focusing our attention on. First, we should develop acoustic detection and tracking technologies to monitor the migration of right whales so that ships at sea can avoid right whales. Second, we need to continue work on individual satellite tags for right whales. This is yet another way that we can track whale migration and alert ships at sea of the presence of whales and avoid ship strikes. Third, this legislation would speed up the development of neutrally buoyant line and ``weak link'' fishing gear, so that we can either avoid having whales become entangled in the first place or when they do the ``weak links'' break and they can more easily become disentangled. Finally this legislation supports research and testing into developing innovative ways to increase the success of disentanglement efforts. This legislation allows for the government to provide fishermen ``whale safe'' fishing gear in high use or critical habitat areas. This is crucial, because once we have developed this ``whale safe'' gear we need to get it in the water as soon as possible. I believe an assistance program that is fair to fishermen will be needed and we are asking the agencies to tell us the potential costs so we can ensure that the gear can be deployed where needed. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation and Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive ship strike avoidance plan for Right Whales. I am pleased that a draft plan has been issued this week, but I want to make it clear that a plan must be implemented by January of 2003. I would like to stress to my colleagues, that by far the number one source of know right whale mortalities is ship strikes, and in my opinion we have not done nearly enough to prevent these lethal ship strikes from happening. This legislation establishes a right whale research grant program. This program will establish a peer review process of all innovative biological and technical projects designed to protect right whales. In addition to the scientific community, this peer review team will also be comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the maritime transportation industry. It is important that from the very beginning we have the input of the people who are on the water every day. Their knowledge and experience is absolutely necessary to developing innovative practices and techniques to save right whales. Congress has appropriated over $8 million dollars in the last two years to protect right whales. I believe that now is the time to develop a comprehensive plan that spells out what we can do immediately to better protect these whales and focus our research efforts on innovative ideas and technologies that can identify whale migrations.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, I rise today to introduce the North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Act of 2001. I am pleased to be joined by our Commerce Committee Chairman, Senator Hollings in this effort. This bill is designed to improve the management and research activities for right whales and increase the focus on reducing mortality caused by ship collisions, entanglement in fishing gear, and other causes. The most endangered of the great whales, the northern Atlantic right whale has shown no evidence of recovery since the whaling days of the 1900s despite full protection from hunting by a League of Nations agreement since 1935. Today the population of North Atlantic Right Whales remains at less than 350 animals, although 2001 was a banner year for reproduction as over 30 calves were born. The entire Nation has watched with great interest as a team of experts from a number of organizations including the National Marine Fisheries Service, the New England Aquarium and the Center for Coastal Studies has sought to remove the nylon rope that is imbedded in the jaw of a North Atlantic Right Whale, dubbed ``Churchill''. By all accounts, unless the rope is removed the whale is likely to die from infections that are already discoloring the whale's skin. I would like to offer my sincere appreciation for all of these efforts to date and I hope that by offering this legislation today that we can refocus our attention on how to protect these magnificent mammals. Right whales are at risk of extinction from a number of sources. These include, ship strikes, the number one source of known right whale fatalities, entanglement in fishing gear, coastal pollution, habitat degradation, ocean noise and climate change. This legislation requires the Secretary of Commerce to institute a North Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Program, in coordination with the Department of Transportation and other appropriate Federal agencies, States, the Southeast and Northeast Northern Atlantic Right Whale Recovery Plan Implementation Team and the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team, pursuant to the authority provided under the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This legislation would require the Secretary of Commerce within 6 months of enactment, to initiate demonstration projects designed to result in the immediate reductions in North Atlantic right whale deaths. There are 4 distinct areas that I believe we should be focusing our attention on. First, we should develop acoustic detection and tracking technologies to monitor the migration of right whales so that ships at sea can avoid right whales. Second, we need to continue work on individual satellite tags for right whales. This is yet another way that we can track whale migration and alert ships at sea of the presence of whales and avoid ship strikes. Third, this legislation would speed up the development of neutrally buoyant line and ``weak link'' fishing gear, so that we can either avoid having whales become entangled in the first place or when they do the ``weak links'' break and they can more easily become disentangled. Finally this legislation supports research and testing into developing innovative ways to increase the success of disentanglement efforts. This legislation allows for the government to provide fishermen ``whale safe'' fishing gear in high use or critical habitat areas. This is crucial, because once we have developed this ``whale safe'' gear we need to get it in the water as soon as possible. I believe an assistance program that is fair to fishermen will be needed and we are asking the agencies to tell us the potential costs so we can ensure that the gear can be deployed where needed. This legislation requires the Secretary of Transportation and Commerce to develop and implement a comprehensive ship strike avoidance plan for Right Whales. I am pleased that a draft plan has been issued this week, but I want to make it clear that a plan must be implemented by January of 2003. I would like to stress to my colleagues, that by far the number one source of know right whale mortalities is ship strikes, and in my opinion we have not done nearly enough to prevent these lethal ship strikes from happening. This legislation establishes a right whale research grant program. This program will establish a peer review process of all innovative biological and technical projects designed to protect right whales. In addition to the scientific community, this peer review team will also be comprised of representatives of the fishing industry and the maritime transportation industry. It is important that from the very beginning we have the input of the people who are on the water every day. Their knowledge and experience is absolutely necessary to developing innovative practices and techniques to save right whales. Congress has appropriated over $8 million dollars in the last two years to protect right whales. I believe that now is the time to develop a comprehensive plan that spells out what we can do immediately to better protect these whales and focus our research efforts on innovative ideas and technologies that can identify whale migrations.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the quality of life for the more than 250,000 Americans with End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD. The Kidney Patient Daily Dialysis Quality Act of 2001 will update the Medicare program to reflect the current state of medical science on the efficacy of hemodialysis by eliminating the limitation on the number of sessions now covered by Medicare. Specifically, this bill move Medicare beyond its conventional coverage of three hemodialysis sessions per week to provide coverage of more frequent hemodialysis, as defined by at least five times a week at a dialysis facility or in the home, if determined appropriate by a patient's physician. ESRD is irreversible kidney failure. Without treatment or transplantation, death invariably results. Unfortunately, the number of Americans with ESRD is growing at a rate of 6 percent to 7 percent per year, and this population is projected to double over the next ten years. Due to the shortage of organs available for transplantation, almost 90 percent of patients with ESRD received hemodialysis treatments three times per week. This has been standard policy since 1972, when Congress created the Medicare End Stage Renal Disease Program. This program has been enormously successful in saving hundreds of thousands of lives, and increasing the life expectancy for hundreds of thousands of others with this terrible disease. However, the program now needs to be modernized. Today, scientific and medical evidence shows that more frequent hemodialysis enhances the health of patients with ESRD by improving toleration of dialysis, high blood pressure and anemia control, cardiovascular status, nutrition, quality of sleep, mental clarity, and increasing energy and strength. In addition to these improvements in patient health, and subsequent reductions in required medications and hospitalizations, daily hemodialysis can significantly reduce costs to the Medicare program. According to a Project Hope study, more frequent hemodialysis could save the Medicare program between $120 million and $260 million per year. The Kidney Patient Daily Dialysis Quality Act of 2001 stands to improve the quality of life for hundreds of thousands of Americans suffering from kidney failure. Scientific evidence supports the promise of this legislation and modern technology exists to provide it, it is time to deliver.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation to improve the quality of life for the more than 250,000 Americans with End Stage Renal Disease, ESRD. My legislation will update the Medicare program to provide patients with better treatment for ESRD by providing coverage of oral prescription medications that reduce the serum phosphate levels in dialysis patients. Patients with ESRD cannot eliminate dietary phosphorus and, without undergoing a kidney transplant, risk developing a condition known as hyperphosphatemia. This condition, and the hospitalization that accompanies it, can be prevented through the use of phosphate binding drugs, which are taken orally with meals and bind to dietary phosphorus, thereby reducing absorption in the body. Making phosphate binders available to Medicare-eligible ESRD patients makes both medical and economical sense. Not only do these medications improve the quality of life for patients with kidney failure, but they stand to reduce overall Medicare costs associated with treating patients who develop hyperphosphatemia. A recent scientific study by the U.S. Renal Data System found that the use of one such drug could save Medicare, on average, $17,328 per patient on an annual basis. Under current law, ESRD patients are prohibited from enrolling in Medicare+Choice plans. Many ESRD patients are also ineligible for ``Medigap'' coverage as 63 percent of the patients are under the age of 65. Thus, ESRD patients are denied access to the only existing mechanisms under which Medicare enrollees can obtain prescription drug coverage. ESRD patients are among the sickest, poorest, most likely to be disabled, and most frequently hospitalized of all Medicare beneficiaries. In light of the shortage of organs available for transplant, it is imperative that we do all we can to supplement traditional hemodialysis treatment and improve the quality of life for those patients with kidney disease. Scientific evidence supports the promise of phosphate binding drugs to enhance the health of Americans with ESRD, and it is time that every patient realize that promise.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing a bill to establish a five-year pilot program at the Small Business Administration to help protect the intellectual property of companies that are trying to export promising technology they have developed through the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs. This week is a particularly appropriate time to introduce this legislation because 211 years ago, in 1790, the very first U.S. patent was issued. It was issued to Mr. Samuel Hopkins of Pennsylvania and signed by President George Washington himself. A lot has changed in the past two centuries, but the need to protect intellectual property remains as important as ever. Our forefathers had the wisdom to guarantee ``inventors the exclusive right to their respective . . . discoveries'' in the United States. Today, the need for foreign patent protection is equally critical for international sales. These small businesses need help because protecting the intellectual property of the technology they export requires them to file for foreign patents, and the costs associated with filing such patents are often prohibitively expensive. We know this because it has been documented through outside research and testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. For example, Mr. Clifford Hoyt, who is vice president and chief technology officer of Cambridge Research and Instrumentation, testified on June 21st, as part of the Committee's hearing on reauthorization of the STTR program, that ``patent protection in Europe is $20,000.'' Information from the American Intellectual Property Law Association's, AIPLA, spring meeting shows that the costs of foreign patents range from $7,200 in Canada to $27,200 in Japan. Those costs include fees for filing, examination, translation and attorneys. Interestingly enough, foreign patent protection costs are not just an obstacle for small businesses; they also affect our universities. Let me quote Dr. Anthony Pirri, who is director of technology transfer for Northeastern University in Boston and also testified at the STTR hearing: ``For universities like Northeastern with limited resources, the patent expense burden is large. It is especially large because many of our technologies have international significance and require us to patent, do foreign filings. Therefore, anything you can do to help in that world would be very desirable.'' This problem was first identified in 1996 through a research study financed by the SBA's Office of Advocacy entitled ``Foreign Patenting Behavior in Small and Large Firms.'' That study found that ``technology-based small businesses were filing fewer patents overseas than large businesses for similar innovative products primarily due to a lack of funds to obtain foreign patents.'' Foreign patent protection is important to eventual commercialization. However, if technologies of small businesses aren't protected, large foreign-owned firms can replicate the product and benefit directly from a U.S. Federally funded research effort. I am obviously concerned about this. To help small innovative companies overcome such barriers, and to maximize our investment in the SBIR and STTR technologies, the Small Business Administration, SBA, should be authorized to provide grants to underwrite the costs of initial foreign patent applications filed by SBIR and STTR companies. Ultimately, the goal is for the grant fund to be self-sustaining, generating revenue from a percentage of the relevant technology's export sales and/or licensing fees. Here's how the grants would work: The SBA would be authorized to award grants of up to $25,000 to companies seeking foreign patent protection for their technology or product developed under the SBIR and STTR programs. Each company would be limited to one grant and, in order to be eligible for the grant, it must have already filed for patent protection in the United States. Both of these provisions are designed to ensure, to the extent possible, that companies apply for their most promising technology and therefore return money to the grant fund. By giving the companies only one shot at a grant to protect and make money from their SBIR or STTR technologies, it forces them to select the one most likely to succeed and have sales. At the same time, requiring companies to have already filed for patent protection in the United States prior to seeking a foreign patent grant is a gauge of the company's confidence in the commercial potential of its technology. It also demonstrates the company's commitment to protecting that technology. The bill establishes the program at $2.5 million in the first year and increases that amount gradually over four years to $10 million annually. In FY2003, the bill authorizes $2.5 million, in order to fund 100 grants of $25,000. In FY2004, the bill authorizes $5 million, in order to fund 200 grants of $25,000. In FY2005, the bill authorizes $7.5 million, in order to fund 300 grants of $25,000. In FY2006 and FY2007, the bill authorizes $10 million a year, in order to fund 400 grants of $25,000. As I said earlier, ultimately the goal is for this to be a self- sustaining grant fund. To realize that money, in return for the grants, each recipient would be obligated to pay between three percent and five percent of its related export sales or licensing fees to the fund, to be known as the ``SBIR and STTR Foreign Patent Protection Grant Fund.'' To maintain a reasonable incentive for the small businesses, the total amount would be capped at four times the amount of the grant, which for a $25,000 grant would be $100,000. I have talked about many of the needs and merits of this legislation, but in closing I would like to add that increased, successful exports by our innovative small businesses could mean a lot to the U.S. economy overall. We have seen the balance of trade deficits rise steadily for many years. According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Foreign Trade Division, in last year alone our country's trade balance deficit was $436 billion. The first four months of 2001 are slightly worse. We should be doing everything that we can to improve upon our exports, and small businesses can play an important role in that arena. I hope that my colleagues will join me in sponsoring this bill. This pilot, if enacted and implemented properly, has the potential to greatly benefit small businesses, protect their innovations and promote their exports. I thank the President and ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the availability of affordable housing across the country while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the cost of housing that remains. That is why, along with sixteen cosponsors, I am proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this legislation would create an affordable housing production program, ensuring that new rental units are built for those who most need assistance extremely low-income families, including working families. The goal is to create long-term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. Seventy-five percent of Trust Fund assistance will be given out, based on need, through matching grants to states. The States will allocate funds on a competitive basis to projects that meet Federal requirements, such as mixed-income projects and long-term affordability, and to address local needs. The remainder of the funding will be competitively awarded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to intermediaries such as the Enterprise Foundation, which will be required to leverage private funds. A portion of the Trust Fund will be used to promote home ownership activities for low- income Americans. Funding for the Trust Fund would be drawn from excess revenue generated by the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage Administration beyond the amounts necessary to ensure their safety and soundness. These Federal housing programs generate billions of dollars in excess income, which currently go to the general Treasury for use on other Federal priorities. It is time to stop taking housing money out of housing programs. These excess funds should be used to help alleviate the current housing crisis. According to current projections, approximately $5.7 billion will be available for the Trust Fund in the first year and $2 billion will be available each year thereafter. The need for affordable housing is great. While many Americans have benefitted from the growing economy over the past decade, it has also fueled a dramatic increase in the cost of housing. Many working families have been unable to keep up with these increases. HUD estimates that more than five million American households have what is considered ``worst case'' housing needs. Many of these families are spending more than half their income for housing or are living in severely substandard housing. Since 1990, the number of families who have ``worst case'' housing needs has increased by 12 percent, that's 600,000 more American families that cannot afford a decent and safe place to live. Recent growth in our economy also has squeezed many working families out of tight housing markets across the country. On average, a person needs to earn more than $11 per hour just to afford the median rent on a two-bedroom apartment in the United States. There is not one metropolitan area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. This hourly figure is dramatically higher in many metropolitan areas, an hourly wage of $22 is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 in Boston; $16 in the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and, $13 in Atlanta. Mikala Bembery is a single mother with two boys who now lives in Framingham, MA. Her family's housing story is not unique for many low- and moderate income families in Massachusetts and across the nation. In 1995, Mikala lost her full-time job and could not make the rent on the fair market apartment in which she and her children lived. While she quickly got a part-time job, for the next two years, the Bembery family was forced to live with friends or in rooming houses because they did not initially qualify for either a shelter or a Federal Section 8 subsidy. Finally, after appealing HUD's decision and months of delay, Mikala was given a Section 8 voucher for her family. You would think that obtaining a Section 8 voucher would allow the Bembery family to find affordable housing. However, because there is a dramatic shortage of affordable housing in Massachusetts, it took several months of searching to find a new apartment for her family. Every available apartment was viewed by hundreds of people and landlords were able to pick and choose whom they wanted. Because of Mikala's strong work history, she and her family were finally able to move into a new apartment two years after she lost her full time job. Although, Mikala kept working and her children stayed in school throughout their ordeal, this family is still struggling to rebuild their lives. Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford housing. A person trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000, annually, just to afford a 2-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full time workers may have trouble affording even a modest 2-bedroom apartment. At the same time, there has been a tremendous decline in the available stock of affordable housing. Between 1993 and 1995, there was a 900,000 decline in the number of affordable rental units available to very low-income families. From 1996 to 1998, there was another 19 percent decline in the number of affordable housing units. This amounted to a dramatic reduction of 1.3 million affordable housing units available to low-income Americans. Making matters worse, many current affordable housing providers are deciding to opt-out of their Section 8 contracts or are prepaying their HUD-insured mortgages. These decisions have limited further the availability of affordable housing across the country. Many more providers will be able to opt-out of their Section 8 contracts in the next few years, further limiting the availability of affordable housing in our nation. This decline has already forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston, Massachusetts to live outside the City there is no affordable housing available. The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We have the resources, yet we are not devoting these resources to fix the problem. Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing, we have decreased federal spending on critical housing programs over time. Between 1978 and 1995, the number of households receiving housing assistance was increased by almost three million. From 1978 through 1984, we provided an additional 230,000 families with housing assistance each year. This number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year from 1985 through 1995. In 1996, this Nation's housing policy went all the way back to square one--not only was there no increase in families receiving housing assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From 1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households dropped by 51,000. During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available to working families. Unfortunately, President Bush and Republicans in the Congress have again failed to assist working families in obtaining decent affordable housing. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999, Republicans in control of the Congress diverted or rescinded more than $20 billion from federal housing programs for other uses. This year, many Republicans in the Congress and the Bush Administration have supported more than $2 billion in additional cuts for the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget. These cuts include terminating the Drug Elimination Program, reducing funding for the Community Development Block Grant, and funds incremental Section 8 vouchers for 53,500 fewer families. Thankfully, under the leadership of the Democrats in the Senate and Chairman Barbara Mikulski, the worst of these cuts have been restored in the Senate FY 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Nevertheless, we still have much more work to do. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to receive a reduction in federal assistance at a time when my State has the greatest need. The future is even bleaker. These reductions at HUD follow the enactment of a tax plan that will make it almost impossible for any significant increases in the HUD's budget over the next decade. We need to bring housing resources back up to where they belong and the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will provide desperately needed funds to begin production of affordable housing in the United States. Enacting the Housing Trust Fund legislation is an important step in the right direction to add resources to housing and to help begin producing housing again. We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing, and the impact it is having on families and children around the country. It is not clear to me why this lack of housing has not caused more uproar. How many families need to be pushed out of their homes and into the streets, before action is taken. I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path, one that ensures that every American, especially our children, has the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing. Everyone knows that decent housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance, has benefitted millions of low-income children across the nation and has helped in developing stable home environments. However, too many children currently live in families that have substandard housing or are homeless. These children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be productive citizens. Because of the positive affect that this legislation would have on America's children, the Trust Fund was included in the Act to Leave No Child Behind, a comprehensive proposal by the Children's Defense Fund to assist in the development of our Nation's children. I also believe that our Nation deserves a program that would assist in maintaining the affordable housing stock that already exists. I am working with Senator James Jeffords in developing legislation to help preserve our affordable housing stock. It is my hope that this legislation will be taken up and passed this Congress so that we can avoid losing any more affordable units. However, we must also focus on producing additional housing, which is exactly what this Housing Trust Fund will do. I urge you to support this legislation which restores our commitment to providing affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn our backs on those families who struggle every day just to put a roof over their heads.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. Recent changes in the housing market have limited the availability of affordable housing across the country while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the cost of housing that remains. That is why, along with sixteen cosponsors, I am proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this legislation would create an affordable housing production program, ensuring that new rental units are built for those who most need assistance extremely low-income families, including working families. The goal is to create long-term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. Seventy-five percent of Trust Fund assistance will be given out, based on need, through matching grants to states. The States will allocate funds on a competitive basis to projects that meet Federal requirements, such as mixed-income projects and long-term affordability, and to address local needs. The remainder of the funding will be competitively awarded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to intermediaries such as the Enterprise Foundation, which will be required to leverage private funds. A portion of the Trust Fund will be used to promote home ownership activities for low- income Americans. Funding for the Trust Fund would be drawn from excess revenue generated by the Federal Housing Administration and Government National Mortgage Administration beyond the amounts necessary to ensure their safety and soundness. These Federal housing programs generate billions of dollars in excess income, which currently go to the general Treasury for use on other Federal priorities. It is time to stop taking housing money out of housing programs. These excess funds should be used to help alleviate the current housing crisis. According to current projections, approximately $5.7 billion will be available for the Trust Fund in the first year and $2 billion will be available each year thereafter. The need for affordable housing is great. While many Americans have benefitted from the growing economy over the past decade, it has also fueled a dramatic increase in the cost of housing. Many working families have been unable to keep up with these increases. HUD estimates that more than five million American households have what is considered ``worst case'' housing needs. Many of these families are spending more than half their income for housing or are living in severely substandard housing. Since 1990, the number of families who have ``worst case'' housing needs has increased by 12 percent, that's 600,000 more American families that cannot afford a decent and safe place to live. Recent growth in our economy also has squeezed many working families out of tight housing markets across the country. On average, a person needs to earn more than $11 per hour just to afford the median rent on a two-bedroom apartment in the United States. There is not one metropolitan area in the country where a minimum wage earner can afford to pay the rent for a two-bedroom apartment. This hourly figure is dramatically higher in many metropolitan areas, an hourly wage of $22 is needed in San Francisco; $21 on Long Island; $17 in Boston; $16 in the D.C. area; $14 in Seattle and Chicago; and, $13 in Atlanta. Mikala Bembery is a single mother with two boys who now lives in Framingham, MA. Her family's housing story is not unique for many low- and moderate income families in Massachusetts and across the nation. In 1995, Mikala lost her full-time job and could not make the rent on the fair market apartment in which she and her children lived. While she quickly got a part-time job, for the next two years, the Bembery family was forced to live with friends or in rooming houses because they did not initially qualify for either a shelter or a Federal Section 8 subsidy. Finally, after appealing HUD's decision and months of delay, Mikala was given a Section 8 voucher for her family. You would think that obtaining a Section 8 voucher would allow the Bembery family to find affordable housing. However, because there is a dramatic shortage of affordable housing in Massachusetts, it took several months of searching to find a new apartment for her family. Every available apartment was viewed by hundreds of people and landlords were able to pick and choose whom they wanted. Because of Mikala's strong work history, she and her family were finally able to move into a new apartment two years after she lost her full time job. Although, Mikala kept working and her children stayed in school throughout their ordeal, this family is still struggling to rebuild their lives. Working families in this country are increasingly finding themselves unable to afford housing. A person trying to live in Boston would have to make more than $35,000, annually, just to afford a 2-bedroom apartment. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full time workers may have trouble affording even a modest 2-bedroom apartment. At the same time, there has been a tremendous decline in the available stock of affordable housing. Between 1993 and 1995, there was a 900,000 decline in the number of affordable rental units available to very low-income families. From 1996 to 1998, there was another 19 percent decline in the number of affordable housing units. This amounted to a dramatic reduction of 1.3 million affordable housing units available to low-income Americans. Making matters worse, many current affordable housing providers are deciding to opt-out of their Section 8 contracts or are prepaying their HUD-insured mortgages. These decisions have limited further the availability of affordable housing across the country. Many more providers will be able to opt-out of their Section 8 contracts in the next few years, further limiting the availability of affordable housing in our nation. This decline has already forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston, Massachusetts to live outside the City there is no affordable housing available. The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We have the resources, yet we are not devoting these resources to fix the problem. Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing, we have decreased federal spending on critical housing programs over time. Between 1978 and 1995, the number of households receiving housing assistance was increased by almost three million. From 1978 through 1984, we provided an additional 230,000 families with housing assistance each year. This number dropped significantly to 126,000 additional households each year from 1985 through 1995. In 1996, this Nation's housing policy went all the way back to square one--not only was there no increase in families receiving housing assistance, but the number of assisted units actually decreased. From 1996 to 1998, the number of HUD assisted households dropped by 51,000. During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available to working families. Unfortunately, President Bush and Republicans in the Congress have again failed to assist working families in obtaining decent affordable housing. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1999, Republicans in control of the Congress diverted or rescinded more than $20 billion from federal housing programs for other uses. This year, many Republicans in the Congress and the Bush Administration have supported more than $2 billion in additional cuts for the Department of Housing and Urban Development budget. These cuts include terminating the Drug Elimination Program, reducing funding for the Community Development Block Grant, and funds incremental Section 8 vouchers for 53,500 fewer families. Thankfully, under the leadership of the Democrats in the Senate and Chairman Barbara Mikulski, the worst of these cuts have been restored in the Senate FY 2002 VA-HUD and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. Nevertheless, we still have much more work to do. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is expected to receive a reduction in federal assistance at a time when my State has the greatest need. The future is even bleaker. These reductions at HUD follow the enactment of a tax plan that will make it almost impossible for any significant increases in the HUD's budget over the next decade. We need to bring housing resources back up to where they belong and the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will provide desperately needed funds to begin production of affordable housing in the United States. Enacting the Housing Trust Fund legislation is an important step in the right direction to add resources to housing and to help begin producing housing again. We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing, and the impact it is having on families and children around the country. It is not clear to me why this lack of housing has not caused more uproar. How many families need to be pushed out of their homes and into the streets, before action is taken. I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path, one that ensures that every American, especially our children, has the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing. Everyone knows that decent housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance, has benefitted millions of low-income children across the nation and has helped in developing stable home environments. However, too many children currently live in families that have substandard housing or are homeless. These children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be productive citizens. Because of the positive affect that this legislation would have on America's children, the Trust Fund was included in the Act to Leave No Child Behind, a comprehensive proposal by the Children's Defense Fund to assist in the development of our Nation's children. I also believe that our Nation deserves a program that would assist in maintaining the affordable housing stock that already exists. I am working with Senator James Jeffords in developing legislation to help preserve our affordable housing stock. It is my hope that this legislation will be taken up and passed this Congress so that we can avoid losing any more affordable units. However, we must also focus on producing additional housing, which is exactly what this Housing Trust Fund will do. I urge you to support this legislation which restores our commitment to providing affordable housing for all families. We can no longer turn our backs on those families who struggle every day just to put a roof over their heads.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President. I join with my colleagues in support of the President's nomination of Hector V. Barreto, Jr., to be Administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or SBA. Mr. Barreto was born and raised in Kansas City, MO. He received a B.S./B.A. degree in management and Spanish, in 1983, from Kansas City's Rockhurst College. As Administrator of the SBA, it will serve Mr. Barreto well that he comes from the small business community and can appreciate the challenges small business owners face. He founded Barreto Insurance and Financial Services in 1986 and serves as president-owner. The firm provides financial services and business insurance to the Los Angeles area Latino community. He also founded a second business, TELACU-Barreto Financial Services, which is one of the first Latino- owned securities broker-dealers, specializing in retirement-pension plans. Mr. Barreto has been active in Latino business affairs. He has served as vice-chair of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, an organization founded by his father, Hector Barreto, Sr. He also has served as chair of the Latin Business Association, Founding Member of the New America Alliance and chair of the Latin Business PAC, and on several corporate boards, including GE Financial Advisory Board, Sempra Energy Advisory Board and the TELACU Industries Board of Directors. Many of these groups have joined more than 90 others in support of Mr. Barreto's nomination. I am pleased with Mr. Barreto's small business roots and admire his efforts to empower Hispanic Americans to share in our country's economic vitality. I hope he will bring the insights gained from his experiences to his leadership at the SBA. SBA has played an instrumental role spurring the growth of this country's small businesses. The Agency has helped Americans start, run, and grow their businesses by offering access to credit and capital, procurement guidance, business management education and technical assistance. I met with Mr. Barreto last week. We had a good discussion about SBA and the many issues and obstacles that small business owners and entrepreneurs must face on a daily basis. I look forward to working together with Mr. Barreto to make the SBA even more effective than it's been. There is a strong benchmark from which to start. SBA's record has been nothing short of extraordinary, particularly in view of a 22 percent staff level reduction. From 1993 through 2000, SBA provided more services to more small businesses than in the entire previous history of the Agency. Its loan portfolio almost quintupled from $10 billion to nearly $50 billion and its venture capital dollars practically doubled from $10.2 billion to over $19 billion. Moreover, SBA approved more than $19 billion in loans to some 80,000 minority- owned businesses--more than double the amount recorded during the Agency's prior 39 years. Typically, SBA's assistance is needed most during economic downturns. If the economy continues to cool, as many economists predict it will, Congress and the administration will need to redouble their support for the policies and programs that SBA has used so successfully to stimulate the growth and contributions of America's small businesses. One of the best opportunities to do so is in the shaping of SBA's budget. The budget with which we were presented this year was inadequate. That is why Senator Bond and I worked together to pass an amendment to restore large, unwise cuts in SBA's fiscal year 2001 budget. As Mr. Barreto assumes a key role in the preparation of SBA's fiscal year 2002 budget, I hope he will work with us and fight hard for a budget that adequately funds important SBA programs. The administration's commitment to small businesses should start with SBA's new Administrator. Specifically, we will look to Mr. Barreto, for the vision, leadership, and management skills required for SBA to surpass the progress made by the Agency over the last 8 years in supporting and encouraging small business and entrepreneurship. I urge my colleagues to support Mr. Barreto's nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority whip and the Senator from Tennessee for his courtesy. I will try not to use all that time. I cannot guarantee it. I obviously rise to discuss the nomination of John Graham. Having served now for a number of years as chairman or ranking member, in one role or the other, of the Committee on Small Business, I have watched firsthand and listened firsthand to the frustration of a great many business owners dealing with Federal regulation. I think all of us have heard these arguments at one time or another. I have obviously also witnessed, as many of you have, how needlessly complex and redundant regulations can stifle economic growth and innovation and also how regulation that was designed for a large corporate entity is often totally incompatible with small firms. Always the intention of the underlying rule or law is sound, whether it is protecting the environment or public health or worker safety or consumers, but too often the implementation becomes excessive, overzealous, onerous, restrictive and, in the end, it is harmful. Recognizing this problem, I have supported a range of efforts to ensure that regulations are reasonable, cost effective, market based, and business friendly. In particular, I supported the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. Since its passage, the RFA has played an increasingly important role in protecting our Nation's small businesses from the unintended consequences of Government regulation. Additionally, with the passage of SBREFA, small businesses have been given valuable new tools to help ensure that their special needs and circumstances are taken into consideration. The RFA and SBREFA, if used as intended, work to balance the very real need of our Federal agencies to promulgate important and needed regulations with those of small business compliance costs. They can differ substantially from those of large business cousins. The Small Business Administration reports that these laws I just mentioned have saved over $20 billion in regulatory compliance costs between 1998 and 2000 alone without sacrificing needed safeguards. On the other side of the ledger, though, I also believe very strongly that the Federal Government has a responsibility to protect the environment, public health, consumers, and workers. It was 6 years ago that I joined with others in the U.S. Senate to oppose the enactment of a bill that was incorrectly called the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act, a bill which, for many of us who looked at it closely and examined what were good intentions, we determined would have undermined important Federal protections. I listened to the Senator from Texas a moment ago ask how society can be the loser for looking at cost-benefit. I support looking at cost- benefit. I support looking at the least-intrusive, most effective, least-cost solution to a number of enforcement measures which we seek to put in place. But to answer the question of the Senator from Texas, how can society be a loser, the answer is very simple. Society can be a loser when people bring you a bill such as the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act that pretended to do certain things but actually, both in intent and effect, would have done an enormous amount of damage to the regulatory scheme. The reason society can be a loser, in answer to the question of the Senator from Texas, is that if you apply the wrong standards, if you apply the wrong judgments about how you make your cost analysis, you can completely skew that analysis to obliterate the interests of health, of the environment, of workers, and of consumers. Some of my colleagues may have forgotten that there are people in the Senate and the House of Representatives who voted against the Clean Air Act, who voted against the Clean Water Act, who voted against the Safe Drinking Water Act. There are people who have voted against almost every single regulatory scheme that we seek to implement in the interest of protecting clean water, clean air, hazardous waste, and a host of others. There has long been a movement in this country by those people who have most objected to those regulations in the first place to create a set of criteria that empower them, under the guise of reform, to actually be able to undermine the laws that they objected to in the first place. That is how society can be a loser, a big loser. In point of fact, what came to us called the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act was, in fact, the planks of the Contract with America, championed by Speaker Newt Gingrich, that began with the premise that they wanted to undo the Clean Water Act altogether. When we looked at this act and began to read through it very closely, we learned that what was purported to be a straightforward attempt to streamline the regulatory process and ensure that Federal and private dollars were spent efficiently and to consider the costs as well as benefits of Federal safeguards, while that may have been the stated purpose, that would not have been the impact of that legislation. In fact, I stood on the floor of the Senate with a group of colleagues who defined those differences, and we stopped that legislation. It would have upended Federal safeguards impacting clean air, clean water, public health, workers, air travel, cars, food, medicine, and potentially every other area regulated for the common good. It did this by creating a complex scheme of decisional criteria, cost-benefit analysis, and judicial review that skewed the entire process away from the balance that we tried to seek in the regulatory reform that many of us have talked about. I am in favor of regulatory reform. Do I believe there are some stupid environmental laws that have been applied in stupid ways by overzealous bureaucrats? The answer is yes, I do. Does it make sense to apply exactly the same clean air standard of a large powerplant to smaller entities, and so forth? I think most people would agree there are ways to arrive at a judgment about cost and analysis that is fair. In working on that legislation, I saw how the regulatory process under the guise of regulatory reform can be weakened to the point that the laws of the Congress that we have enacted to protect the public would be effectively repealed. It is partly because of the work that I did at that time that I join my colleague from Illinois and others. I congratulate my colleague from Illinois for his steadfast effort. We know where we are on this vote, but we also know where we are in what is at stake. I have serious concerns with this nomination because during that period of time, this nominee strongly supported and helped draft the regulation that I just described and other omnibus regulatory rollback measures that I strongly opposed in the 104th Congress. As Administrator, Dr. Graham will be in a position to profoundly impact a wide range of issues and to execute administratively some of the failed proposals that he has supported previously legislatively. We all understand what this office is. We understand that OMB Director Daniels has already signaled the amount of increased power that Dr. Graham will have over his predecessor in the Clinton administration. Let me give an example of one of the ways this would have an influence. The way in which these rules can be obviously skewed to affect things is clear in the work that we have already seen of Dr. Graham. For instance, his approach to risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, in my judgment, has been weighed, if you look at it carefully, against a fair and balanced judgment of what also ought to be measured about public health and environmental protection itself. For instance, he focuses on the age of a person saved by a particular safeguard. In doing so, he argues that the life of an elderly person is inherently less valuable than that of a younger person and thus less worthy of protection. Now, I don't know how many Americans want to make a judgment about their family, their grandmother, or grandfather on that basis. But if you weight it sufficiently, you could come out with a judgment on cost that clearly diminishes the level of protection. In addition to that, you make a judgment that people who die in the future are deemed less valuable than people who die in the present. The doctor has neglected benefits from avoided injury alone, such as the prevention after nonfetal adverse health effects or ecological damage. These are things many of us believe ought to be weighted as a component in the balance, and they are not. That is how you wind up skewing the consequences. I am not telling you that it is inherently wrong, if you want to make a hardnosed statistical judgment, but I am saying that when the value of life, health, and our environment are discounted too far, then even reasonable protections don't have a prayer of passing muster under any such analysis. I am concerned that Dr. Graham's preferred methodology in this area, such as comparative risk analysis, would make it extraordinarily difficult for a new generation of safeguards to be approved under his or anybody else's tenure. In addition, Dr. Graham made his views known on a range of issues, and it is apparent that if the past is a prelude to the future, he would be hostile to a number of important public safeguards. For example, he argued against the EPA's determination that dioxin is linked to serious health problems--a hypothesis that EPA's Deputy Assistant Administrator for Science called ``irresponsible and inaccurate.'' Those are the words of the Deputy Administrator of EPA. In 1999, Dr. Graham's center published a report funded by the American Farm Bureau Federation that concluded that banning certain highly toxic pesticides would actually increase the loss of life because of disruptions to the food supply caused by a shortage of pesticides to protect crops. If anybody thinks that is an analysis on which we ought to base the denial of regulations, I would be surprised. However, the report also ignored readily available, safer substitutes. Dr. Graham's center concluded that the EPA overestimated the benefits of clean air protections because most acute air pollution deaths occur among elderly persons with serious preexisting cardiac respiratory disease. Under Dr. Graham's approach, the benefits would be lowered to reflect his view that older citizens are worth less in raw economic terms. Dr. Graham's center issued a study funded by AT&T Wireless Communications that argued against a ban on using cellular phones while driving. An independent 1997 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the risk of car crashes is four times greater when a driver uses a cell phone. In 1995, while debating the merits of the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act, I said then that I was prepared to embrace a legitimate effort to streamline and improve the regulatory process. We worked very hard to find a compromise to do that. I believe that with SBREFA and other measures we have made good progress. I still believe we can make more progress. But I am deeply concerned that the record suggests this balance that we look for, which we want to be sensitive and fair, would be absent with this nominee. In closing, let me acknowledge the fact that Dr. Graham is from my home State of Massachusetts. My office has been contacted by residents who support and residents who oppose this nomination. I have deep respect for many of those who took the time to discuss this with me and my office. I am grateful for friends of mine and friends of Dr. Graham's who have suggested that I should vote for him. I note that I was contacted by several individuals from Harvard University, which is home to Dr. Graham's center. I heard both points of view. I thank each and every person who took the time to contact my office. I intend to cast my vote absolutely not on personal terms at all but exclusively on the experience I had with the Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act and based on what I believe is an already-declared intention and a declared willingness of this administration to disregard important safeguards with respect to the environment. I would like to see a nominee who has a record of a more clear balance, if you will, in the application of those laws. I thank the Chair for the time, and I thank my colleagues.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague, Senator Bond, in introducing the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, Amendments Act of 2001. I am a strong supporter of this program, and am mystified and frustrated by efforts to eliminate funding for and restrict the investment capacity of a program that does so much good for the economy. Last year, the Agency financed 4,600 venture capital deals, which invested $5.6 billion in our fastest-growing small businesses. In spite of this impressive track record, the President's budget, and the House appropriators, have eliminated funding for the SBIC participating securities program and reduced the program level for the debenture program, which requires no appropriations. Why eliminate funding and restrict activity for the SBIC programs when venture capital has all but dried up? As I have said so many times, the programs at 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 computers. The main purpose of this Act is to adjust the fees charged to Participating Security SBICs from one percent to 1.28 percent. The change is necessary because the demand for the SBIC program is growing beyond what is possible to fund solely through appropriations. The National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, NASBIC, 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. This legislation raises fees just enough to make up the difference between appropriations of $26.2 million, which is level funding, and the $65.4 million that would be needed to provide a $3.5 billion program level. This approach is consistent with the Kerry/Bond amendment to the Budget Resolution that was agreed to in the Senate by voice vote in April, and retained in the final budget resolution. The other changes strengthen the oversight and authority of SBA to take action against bad actors and protect the integrity of the program.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the majority leader.