John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, based on her legal views, which are, thankfully, outside the opinion of most legal scholars and reflected in decades of court decisions--the Clean Air Act, Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act--and many other laws not directly related to the job of Secretary of the Interior but certainly important to this country, such as the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Violence Against Women Act--violate our Constitution in one way or another. Indeed, if her convictions were the basis for this new administration's actions, it would unravel most of our Nation's environmental safeguards. In addition to these writings and comments, Ms. Norton has been an active participant in several lawsuits and other efforts to overturn environmental protections. For example, she serves as an attorney to an organization called the Defenders of Property Rights that has advocated against endangered species protections in more than two dozen lawsuits. Ms. Norton's writing and activism on these issues reaches far beyond the few examples that I have outlined here. To her credit, she has been a capable and dedicated advocate for more than two decades. The problem, simply, is that she has advocated legal and policy positions entirely at odds with the job of Secretary of the Interior. In her testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Ms. Norton distanced herself from her legal and activist record. While I certainly appreciate Ms. Norton's willingness to rethink and revise here views, I remain greatly concerned. Too often absolutist views were cast aside with little or no explanation. Too often the answers were vague and incomplete. Do I expect Ms. Norton to have answers to every issue she may encounter as Secretary? No. But my standard is higher for a nominee who comes before us with a career's record of fighting the laws the administration has now asked her to enforce. History warns us to be concerned and cautious. In 1981, Mr. James Watt was nominated to be the Secretary of the Interior by President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Watt, like Ms. Norton, came to the Senate with a record of anti-environmental legal activism. And like Ms. Norton, Mr. Watt showed a willingness to rethink and revise his views. A passage from the Congressional Record from 1981 is enlightening. For example, Mr. Watt was asked how, in light of his record, would he carry out the Secretary's dual responsibility to permit resource development on the public lands while preserving natural values? Mr. Watt offered the following answer: As Secretary of the Interior, I will fully and faithfully execute the public land policy adopted by Congress requiring such a balanced approach. The record after this is clear. It was opposite to that very answer. This year, Ms. Norton was asked a similar question in regard to her views on the takings clause of the Constitution and environmental enforcement. Ms. Norton answered that she: will protect the federal government's interests in its lands and enforce all environmental and land use laws that apply to the lands and interest managed by the Department of the Interior. Sound familiar? My point is that we have been witness to ``confirmation conversions'' before, and the result--as in the case of Mr. Watt--is sometimes regrettable. When a nominee's record is overwhelmingly slanted in one direction and falls far outside of the mainstream on a set of issues central to the job they will perform, reversals and revision leave me concerned. I looked to Ms. Norton's record as Colorado Attorney General to learn how she performed at a job that required her to enforce environmental laws--again she has argued are constitutionally flawed. I found that record to be decidedly mixed and worrisome. While Ms. Norton pursued two high profile cases against the federal government, environmental organizations, environmental attorneys, and the Denver Post report that in several major cases she failed to enforce environmental law against private companies. For example, in one case, neighbors of a Louisiana-Pacific mill were forced to abandon their homes because the stench of pollution from the facility was so great. Without assistance from the state of Colorado, they hired attorneys and won a $2.3 million court against the company. Although that civil trial uncovered criminal wrongdoing by the company, the state still failed to prosecute. Finally, the federal government interceded and assessed $37 million in fines for fraud and violating the Clean Air Act against Louisiana-Pacific. The attorney who represented the citizens in that case, Kevin Hannon, told the Denver Post. I would have grave concerns about Gale Norton's aggressiveness in enforcing environmental compliance and protecting citizens from environmental damage. And there are additional similar cases. In her defense, Ms. Norton claims to have not acted because state agencies did not ask her to prosecute. That answer is inadequate in my view, Mr. President. In several instances Ms. Norton aggressively pursued her legal agenda as attorney general. For example, Ms. Norton proactively wrote state agencies declaring that a program to increase minority enrollment at state schools was unconstitutional. Ms. Norton refused to defend a state program to increase minority contracting from legal challenge because it was unconstitutional. As Colorado Attorney General, Ms. Norton filed a brief in an Endangered Species Act case in Oregon arguing a provision of the law was unconstitutional. Clearly, Ms. Norton was an aggressive and capable advocate when the legal agenda matched her policy agenda. But when it came to enforcing environmental law against polluting companies, she too often failed to act and seems to have been uncharacteristically passive. Arguably Ms. Norton's performance enforcing environmental law as Colorado's attorney general is the most relevant portion of her resume as she becomes the next Secretary of the Interior. One of her primary responsibilities will be to protect the environment and public land by enforcing the law against private companies. Unfortunately that record is weak on environmental crime. As I have said, Ms. Norton will not receive my vote today. I do not cast this vote lightly. I believe that President Bush should be given wide discretion in selecting a cabinet to advance his agenda. However, there is a reason that the Constitution calls for the Senate to advise and consent on nominations. I believe that policy, ideas and a nominee's professional record matter. In many ways they matter more than the personal issues that derailed other candidates. Each Senator has the right--indeed an obligation--to vote their concerns and hope and their consciences. Ms. Norton will be entrusted with protecting our federal lands and finding that difficult balance between conservation and development. Not an easy job. I feel strongly that Ms. Norton can only do that job properly if she sticks with the legal and policy philosophy she set forth in the Energy Committee hearings and not the philosophy she has advocated for 20 years. I feel strongly that Ms. Norton can only do that job properly if she does a better job enforcing environment law than she did in Colorado. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Senator Boxer said that she would yield me 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent I be afforded that time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Minnesota not just for his graciously yielding me additional time but, most importantly, for the thoughtfulness and sensitivity expressed in his remarks. I associate my remarks very much with his thinking and his approach on this issue. I think each and every one of us in the Senate feels an automatic pressure to want to support the nominee of the President of the United States. I think it is a national feeling that generally pretty good people, with honest records of taking a position for something they believe in in the course of a lifetime, have found their way to the top of their profession in a sense, and the President of the United States, for one reason or another, makes a decision to entrust them with significant responsibilities. There is a lot of goodwill here in the initial days of the administration to want to give the President the person that the President chooses. I think through the 16 years I have been here, and the several Presidents I have had the privilege of giving advice and consent to with respect to their nominations, that there are precious few, a small percentage--very small--that I have chosen to cast my vote against the President's choice. As the Senator from Minnesota said, I think what we are looking for in the person who comes to a job with that kind of responsibility, being a Cabinet Secretary in charge of major responsibilities, is somebody who brings not a series of denials, renunciations, conversions, if you will, from a lifetime of effort, but somebody who brings with them to the job their gut and their heart and their head all linked together in concert with the fundamentals of the job they are being asked to do. In the case of the nominee Gale Norton, I don't find there is that kind of connection, that there is a continuity of a lifetime of effort that shows me with assurance where the stewardship of this department will go. I regret to say to the Chair and to my colleagues that in the course of the years I have been here and had the opportunity to provide advice and consent on other nominees, we have seen people who came without that connection, with that disconnect, and who subsequently fell short in the job because the gut instinct was not to strike the balance; it was to keep faith with who they were and what brought them to the job. I don't cast this vote lightly because I know Ms. Norton has a long and even distinguished record of public and private service. I know her friends and others say she is a decent and a capable professional. Some have, in the course of this debate, labeled her an extremist or even caricatured her as James Watt in a skirt. I think that is unfortunate. I find those labels troubling and improper. They distract from honest differences over principle and policy that have made this nomination troubling for the Senator from Minnesota, for myself, and for others. I oppose Gale Norton's nomination. For a Cabinet post that demands that its occupant strike a very difficult and a very delicate balance-- the same word my colleague from Minnesota used--a balance between conservation and development, President Bush has selected this individual. I suppose one might ask the question, of all the people in the country who have records with respect to the environment and development and striking that balance, of all the attorneys general, of all the people involved in conservation itself, of all the people in the environmental movements of this country, of all the people who have built up records of activism in an effort to try to strike that balance, why is it that we are presented with an individual whose philosophy over the past two decades has been singularly unbalanced? The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for protecting the almost 500 million acres of public land, including 383 parks, 530 wildlife refuges, and 138 wilderness areas. Among these are some of our Nation's most valued lands: Yosemite, with its waterfalls, meadows, the forests, and the giant Sequoias, the world's oldest living things; the Everglades National Park, with its sea of sawgrass, mangroves, hardwood hemlocks, stork, great blue heron, and egrets; Mount Rainier National Park at Mount Rainier--a 14,410-foot-tall active volcano encased in 35 square miles of snow and ice and flanked with old-growth forests and alpine meadows. Some are sanguine to suggest, well, those areas will never be threatened. But I know from talking to people in various parts of the country I visit that there are huge movements where people are angry that so much of their State is protected by the Federal Government; where people believe more of these areas ought to be open to development, not less; where people have witnessed, indeed, efforts to try to stop finding that proper balance between mining and grazing, or a host of other interests, and who would rather open the forests and have the U.S. Government build more logging roads, without even commenting on whether our logging practices are good or bad, after fires that we had last year. Sure, we can improve, but these are different movements, these are movements which disagree with these setasides. I remember what happened on the floor of the Senate just a very few years ago, in 1995, with the House of Representatives and the Senate first term in Republican control, and I remember standing here and by 1 vote only we managed to stop major destruction to 25 years' of efforts to protect the environment of this country--by 1 vote only. We happen to be a little stronger in the Senate today, but knowing how close it was and watching how critical the discretion of a Secretary is in what happens in terms of the regulations, what happens in terms of efforts they take to court or don't take to court, or seek to have protected or not protected, there is enormous discretion exercised on a daily basis. I believe we need to remember the history we have traveled here. There was a period of time where some of the lands I just mentioned, the very ones that are protected today that we think of as national treasures, were not thought of in that way. In 1853, when the U.S. Army's topographical engineers returned from a trip to what we would later call the Grand Canyon, the party reported that it was ``the first, and will doubtless be the last, party to visit this profit-less locality.'' As each decade has passed since those early forays into the American continent, the country's appreciation for its land has grown--I believe it continues to grow among Americans today--the places to hike, canoe, camp, to play, to learn, and to leave nature, except for a harmless visit now and then. There were 273 million visits to our National Parks alone in 1993, a clear sign of their value to the Nation. At the same time, the Interior Secretary manages the development of our public lands. Private companies, from multinational conglomerates to small family businesses, use our Nation's water, minerals, timber, oil, gas, and other public resources. Their industry, obviously, contributes to the national economic growth, and it provides thousands of jobs in regional communities. Our public lands have produced all of the needs of this Nation, and the Department of the Interior has managed hundreds of thousands of claims to mine gold, copper, and other valuable metals; 34 million acres of commercial timberland and 164 million acres of rangelands that are open to grazing. It is the Secretary of the Interior's job to strike the proper balance between conservation and development. It is a tough job. The Secretary is under enormous pressure from those who hope to profit from these natural resources. Once a decision is made to develop land, the impacts are often permanent. You can't turn back the clock and recreate an old-growth forest. You can't return an extinct species of life. You can't return polluted land to absolutely pristine condition. There are many steps we can take to avoid unnecessary damage and restore land, and nature has shown itself to be resilient, but the rate of destruction today and the levels and the kinds of destruction too often force us to lose natural resources forever. The numbers of brownfields in cities around this country, the numbers of Superfund sites that have been on the list for years and remain not cleaned up are testimony to that tragedy. In considering this vote, I have reviewed Ms. Norton's record as a constitutional attorney, an activist, and as Colorado attorney general, and her testimony before the Energy and Natural Resources Committee. It is a record that in my view simply does not reflect the balance I talked about that is necessary to serve as Secretary of the Interior. I know she will be confirmed. Perhaps in the end we will see a different exercise of that discretion. As a constitutional attorney, Ms. Norton argued that bedrock Federal environmental, public health, and other laws are unconstitutional.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today to praise Jere Glover, former Chief Counsel for Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration, for almost seven years of outstanding work in that position. The United States Senate confirmed President Clinton's appointment of Mr. Glover as Chief Counsel for Advocacy on May 4, 1994. Mr. Glover served as Chief Counsel until January 20, 2001. The following briefly highlights some of the Office of Advocacy's achievements during Mr. Glover's leadership. Mr. Glover was instrumental in making the third national White House Conference on Small Business a success. Held in June of 1995 in Washington, DC, it was attended by nearly 2,000 delegates. Some 20,000 small businesses participated in 59 state conferences and six regional conferences leading to the national conference. In the legislation authorizing the conference, the Congress mandated that SBA monitor and report to the delegates on the progress made to implement their recommendations. Under Mr. Glover, the Office of Advocacy established networks of delegates and provided information through ``regional issue chairs.'' In the month of September in 1996, 1997, and, finally, 2000, the Office of Advocacy sent annual implementation reports to Congress, the President and the delegates. These reports indicated the unprecedented progress, compared with previous conferences, in implementing the recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business. Following up on the recommendations of the 1995 White House Conference on Small Business, the Office of Advocacy provided research and testimony in support of a number of laws designed to reduce small business tax, regulatory, and paperwork burdens. In addition to the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the Office of Advocacy supported provisions in the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the American Inventors Protection Act, the Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act and others, all of which incorporated the Conference recommendations. Since the enactment of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) in 1980, the Office of Advocacy has had an oversight role in monitoring compliance with the law. The RFA requires federal agencies to determine whether a proposed rule will have a disproportionate effect on small firms and other small entities and, if so, to explore equally effective alternative regulatory solutions. In 1996, Congress expanded the Office of Advocacy's role by passing the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA). This law provides new avenues for small businesses to participate in and have access to the federal regulatory arena. The Office of Advocacy held briefings for more than 600 federal officials on the requirements and procedures mandated by this amendment to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Office of Advocacy held a special conference for the economic analysts in each agency on how to analyze the economic impact of agency regulations on small business and was successful in challenging violations of the RFA and SBREFA in court. Under Jere Glover, the Office of Advocacy pursued the mandates of SBREFA in over 20 EPA and OSHA small business advocacy review panels. The panels reviewed proposals that would impose burdens on small business and recommended changes. The work of these panels helped craft stronger, more equitable regulations. Even in cases where agreement wasn't reached, small businesses were better informed of regulatory burdens and requirements. At the beginning of this year, the Office of Advocacy published its 20th Anniversary Regulatory Flexibility Act Report. Chief among the report's findings is the estimate that in the 1998-2000 period, regulatory changes supported by the Office of Advocacy saved small businesses about $20 billion in annual and one-time compliance costs. In addition to the Regulatory Flexibility Report, the Office of Advocacy has completed its fourth annual report focusing on small business lending activities of the nation's commercial bank lenders. This study analyzes information in the ``call'' reports filed by all federally regulated banks. The national and state-by-state analyses of the data show which banks, large and small, are most likely to lend to small businesses. The Office of Advocacy reports also categorize the banks by the percentage and dollar volume of their lending to small businesses. Additionally, under Mr. Glover's tenure, the Office of Advocacy has developed, or assisted in the development of a number of databases to address the critical gap in equity capital financing, aide public and private contracting officers seeking small business contractors, subcontractors and partnership opportunities and, measure job creation by small business. Using this data, the Office of Advocacy estimates that small businesses created more than 12 million net new jobs between 1992 and 1996. Mr. President, as the Ranking Democratic Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business, I would like to extend my congratulations to Mr. Glover for his successes while Chief Counsel for Advocacy and wish him well in his future endeavors. I ask that a letter from business groups around the country, thanking Mr. Glover for his hard work and support of America's small businesses, be printed in the Record. The letter follows: A Tribute To Jere W. Glover Jere W. Glover is a great American. Each of us, the undersigned, has had an opportunity to work closely with Jere Glover over the last six years, and we would like to share with America some of our unique experiences and accomplishments with him as the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the U.S. Small Business Administration. On January 20, he will leave behind a significant legacy in the regulatory arena. Jere Glover advanced the cause of small business by decades, by being one of the driving forces behind one of the most significant changes to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA): the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel process. The Panel process enables the Chief Counsel, with the advice of the small business community, to review and evaluate the basis for certain regulations at an early stage of the process. These are regulations that could have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses, small nonprofit organizations, and/or small governments. The Panel process led to a number of significant improvements to regulations of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) in recent years. Perhaps the largest part of his legacy, the work Jere Glover has done with EPA rules affecting the petroleum refining industry, has been most effective. Thanks to Jere Glover, there will continue to be a significant small business presence in this industry. For example, EPA was planning to propose a significantly more stringent regulation of sulfur in gasoline, but Jere helped to persuade EPA that such a decision would be unnecessary and unduly costly to the consumer. EPA eventually signed a rule that would delay the final standards for four to six years for small businesses, allowing them to make more manageable reductions in sulfur over a longer period of time. The same is true about EPA's recent rule to control hazardous air pollutants from mobile sources. Due largely to Jere's counsel, EPA backed away from initial plans for a more stringent rule to commit to a no-cost approach at proposal. His continued interest and advocacy led to further changes to the final rule, which helped the Agency to ensure that it would meet its twin goals of a no-cost rule that, at the same time, maintains the significant air quality improvements over the last several years. Jere Glover was also successful in persuading EPA to build some flexibility into the rule for the control of sulfur in highway diesel fuel, so that small refiners could stage significant investments in the diesel and gasoline sulfur rules. In the safety arena, Jere Glover has been a real watchdog for the rights of small business under the RFA. While there have been only three SBREFA panels at OSHA, Jere Glover was closely involved with each one, ensuring that the concerns of small business were heard. Without the input of Jere and that of small employers, OSHA would not have revised its economic impact analysis of the Ergonomics rule, nor added provisions such as the Quick Fix option, which gave flexibility to small entities. Jere Glover has been a true advocate for the millions of small employers affected by both the Ergonomics rule and the Safety and Health proposed rule. He insisted that OSHA take into consideration not only how differently small employers operate their workplaces, but also how burdensome and costly government regulations are on those employers. With Jere's constant commitment to small business, he was able to argue convincingly that OSHA's cost estimates in both the Ergonomics rule and the Safety and Health program standard were significantly underestimated. And Jere Glover did not stop there. He was instrumental in persuading the EPA not to finalize national wastewater discharge standards for the textile supply and service industry (industrial launderers). By pointing to existing local regulations, Jere was able to convince the EPA that the industry's voluntary pollution prevention and resource conservation program was a more appropriate course of action. He also managed to persuade EPA to provide significant flexibility in the Transportation Equipment Cleaning Industry wastewater regulation. And last, when did EPA learn that the public already knew that there was actually gasoline at gas stations? When Jere Glover pointed it out. The Agency had been insisting that gas station owner/operators should annually complete more paperwork on gasoline to serve the public's right-to-know about environmental hazards. But Jere Glover helped them to see that EPA could use existing paperwork, the underground storage tank forms, to accomplish the same goal at less cost and less burden. The small business community salutes you, Jere Glover. We will miss you, Jere, and your invaluable contributions to our cause. Good luck to you in your future endeavors. We will never forget you. Ad Hoc Coalition of Small Refiners; American Association of Airport Executives; American Electroplaters and Surface Finishers Society; American Foundry Society; Consumer Specialty Products Association; Council of Industrial Boilers; Lead Industries Association, Inc.; Metal Finishing Suppliers Association; National Association of Metal Finishers; National Marine Manufacturers Association; National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc.; North American Die Casting Association; Petroleum Marketers Association of America; Porcelain Enameling Institute; Society of American Florists; Stormwater Reform Coalition; Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Association; Textile Rental Services Association of America; Uniform Textile & Service Association; and United Motorcoach Association.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to make a short statement on President Bush's nomination of New Jersey Governor Christine Todd Whitman to serve as Administer of the Environmental Protection Agency I have known Governor Whitman for many years. I admire her public service record and believe she comes to this job with a strong committment and sensitivity to its many responsibilities. I welcome the opportunity to vote for her. President Bush's choice of New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman is positive signal regarding the environmental agenda that he will pursue over the next four years at EPA. Under her guidance, New Jersey has worked with other Northeastern states to strengthen local and national clean air protections. For example, Ms. Whitman recently supported the EPA's newly announced rule to reduce pollution from diesel fuel. Ms. Whitman has been a strong advocate of preserving open space. On the issue of coastal and marine protection, which is of particular concern to my state of Massachusetts, Ms. Whitman has advocated tougher controls on ocean pollution and enhanced protection of our seashores. One area of concern how been expressed regarding Ms. Whitman's record. Conservation groups in New Jersey claim that during her time as New Jersey governor, Ms. Whitman took a somewhat lax approach to enforcement of environmental law. Needless to say I believe environmental law should be enforced as strenuously as any other law. I anticipated that Ms. Whitman will recognize her new responsibilities and leave no one doubting her willingness to enforce the law vigorously. While I certainly do not share all of Ms. Whitman's views on environmental protection, I believe that she has shown balance and a willingness to listen to all sides throughout her career. I wish her well at the EPA, look forward to working with her and will vote for her nomination today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing a bill to improve the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, a program which makes a very big difference through very small loans of up to $35,000. We are very pleased that Senators Bond, Wellstone, Cleland, Landrieu, Harkin, Levin, Lieberman, Bingaman, Enzi, and Kohl are joining us and cosponsoring this bill. Senator Snowe and I have worked together many times on this program, pushing to make sure our country's smallest businesses have access to capital and business assistance. The changes we are introducing today are not controversial, and they are not new. In fact, they should sound familiar to all but our newest colleagues. First, they were part of the microloan provisions in the Senate version of last year's SBA Reauthorization bill. Second, our Committee and the full Senate voted unanimously to pass them. Further, they were drafted in cooperation with the Administration and with the folks who make the loans and provide the business training. The National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries (NASMI) and its members were full partners in shaping this legislation in the 106th Congress. These provisions were not included in the conference agreement on SBA's Reauthorization bill because the House Committee on Small Business wanted to postpone consideration of these changes until they could hold a hearing and their members could have a chance to weigh in on the program. I thank former House Small Business Committee Chairman Talent, and returning Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, for working with us on the microloan changes. These changes we are re-introducing today will make the SBA Microloan Program more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to microentrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined for lenders to make loans and provide management assistance. They complement the program and technical changes we made last year. The Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001 does the following: It allows microintermediaries to offer revolving lines of credit. Currently, microloans are short-term loans. Eliminating this requirement will allow intermediaries greater latitude in developing microloan products that best meet their community's needs by offering borrowers revolving lines of credit, such as for seasonal contract needs. Congress does not intend for this flexibility to be used to make loans with long terms, such as 15 and 30 years. It broadens the eligibility criteria for potential microintermediaries. Instead of requiring intermediaries to have one year of experience in making microloans to startup, newly established, or growing small businesses and providing technical assistance to its borrowers, this legislation would deem a prospective intermediary eligible if it has equivalent experience. It expands flexibility to intermediaries to subcontract out technical assistance. Currently, intermediaries are limited to using 25 percent of their funds to assist prospective borrowers. This change allows an intermediary to allocate as much technical assistance as appropriate. This subsection also increases the percentage of technical assistance grant funds that an intermediary can use to subcontract out technical assistance. Currently, intermediaries can only subcontract 25 percent, and this legislation would raise it to 35 percent. It establishes a peer-to-peer mentoring program to help new intermediaries provide the best possible service to microentrepreneurs. Specifically, SBA would be allowed to use up to $1 million of annual appropriations for technical assistance grants to provide peer-to-peer mentoring by subcontracting with one or more national trade associations of SBA microlending intermediaries, or subcontracting with entities knowledgeable of and experienced in microlending and related technical assistance. As Congress increases the number of lending intermediaries around the country to reach more people, we want to make sure that new intermediaries have the benefits of lessons learned by other more experienced lending intermediaries. Because the microlending industry is still very young, there are few sources of conventional training available to prospective and new intermediaries. According to the National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries, experienced SBA microlenders are called upon frequently to assist new intermediaries in addressing issues with their loan fund, from financial management and marketing to targeting loan funds effectively to a population or business sector. While these experienced intermediaries do their best to respond to the needs of their colleagues, they currently lack the resources to respond effectively and efficiently to the growing needs of the field. Before I wrap up my statement, I would like to quickly run through the changes we made and that President Clinton signed into law on December 21. Increases the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000; Increases the average loan size for each intermediary's portfolio from $10,000 to $15,000 and increases the average loan size for specialty lenders from $7,500 to $10,000; Raises the threshold for the comparable credit test from $15,000 to $20,000; Increases the number of non-lending technical assistance (TA) providers from 25 to 55 and raises the maximum grant amount to each TA provider from $125,000 to $200,000; and, Increases the number of intermediaries SBA is authorized to fund from 200 to 300. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001. I would like to thank the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for asking me to introduce this bill with her. This legislation would provide fishermen with a tax credit of up to $1,500 for the purchase of safety equipment that will help save lives at sea such as life rafts, immersion suits and Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBS). The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ranks commercial fishing as the most dangerous occupation in America, with approximately 130 deaths a year per 100,000 employees. Nearly 90 percent of all fishing related deaths result from drowning--whether a fisherman falls overboard by slipping on a wet or icy deck, is washed off deck by a wave or is dragged under by a hook or line. In the cold waters off New England and Alaska, a fisherman who goes overboard without an immersion suit has about 6 minutes to be rescued by his shipmates. But fishermen with fully functional immersion suits and life rafts are more than twice as likely to survive the sinking of their vessel. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts knows all to well the dangers of commercial fishing. Gloucester is but one example of the toll it has taken on our coastal fishing communities. Since 1650 the sea has claimed an estimated 10,000 Gloucester fishermen. During the 19th Century, Gloucester would typically lose 200 fishermen annually--about 4 percent of the city's population--to storms in the Gulf of Maine and the Grand Banks. Today, even while the National Weather Service provides timely and accurate forecasts so that we no longer have entire fleets caught on the fishing grounds during a major storm, the tragic statistics continue to roll in. The shocking loss of 11 fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic in two short months during 1998-1999 was unfortunately not an anomaly, but typical of historic trends, according to a Fishing Vessel Safety Task Force convened to investigate the problem. The Task Force also determined the common conditions in these accidents were poor vessel or equipment condition and inadequate preparation for emergencies--including basic equipment like life rafts, EPIRBs, and immersion suits. Confirming the Task Force's observations, last year the First Coast Guard District-- whose area of responsibility stretches from Maine to New Jersey -- reported the death of 13 commercial fishermen. In addition, the District reported saving 47 fishermen whose vessels had either sunk or caught fire. The Coast Guard estimates that 23 of those fishermen are alive today because they had a life raft or immersion suit. While safety is always a concern to our fishermen and their families, the most immediate worry on their minds is declining profits from dwindling stocks and closed areas. In order to meet rebuilding plans for our fish stocks regulators have been forced to implement trip limits and closed areas to rebuild stocks. These measures are working and we are beginning to see some progress in New England. However a few fishermen, primarily in small boats, will travel far out to sea in order to fish outside the closed areas or in a place with a higher trip limit. These fishermen often times cannot afford to replace or inspect old worn out life rafts and immersion suits and place themselves at extreme risk to meet their financial needs. This legislation will help these fishermen put the equipment on their boats now not later and will save lives. It is important that we act on this legislation, so that we provide a financial incentive to fishermen who are facing financial hardship as their fisheries recover, to invest in the replacement and inspection of their survival gear.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing a bill to improve the Small Business Administration's Microloan Program, a program which makes a very big difference through very small loans of up to $35,000. We are very pleased that Senators Bond, Wellstone, Cleland, Landrieu, Harkin, Levin, Lieberman, Bingaman, Enzi, and Kohl are joining us and cosponsoring this bill. Senator Snowe and I have worked together many times on this program, pushing to make sure our country's smallest businesses have access to capital and business assistance. The changes we are introducing today are not controversial, and they are not new. In fact, they should sound familiar to all but our newest colleagues. First, they were part of the microloan provisions in the Senate version of last year's SBA Reauthorization bill. Second, our Committee and the full Senate voted unanimously to pass them. Further, they were drafted in cooperation with the Administration and with the folks who make the loans and provide the business training. The National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries (NASMI) and its members were full partners in shaping this legislation in the 106th Congress. These provisions were not included in the conference agreement on SBA's Reauthorization bill because the House Committee on Small Business wanted to postpone consideration of these changes until they could hold a hearing and their members could have a chance to weigh in on the program. I thank former House Small Business Committee Chairman Talent, and returning Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, for working with us on the microloan changes. These changes we are re-introducing today will make the SBA Microloan Program more flexible to meet credit needs, more accessible to microentrepreneurs across the nation, and more streamlined for lenders to make loans and provide management assistance. They complement the program and technical changes we made last year. The Microloan Program Improvement Act of 2001 does the following: It allows microintermediaries to offer revolving lines of credit. Currently, microloans are short-term loans. Eliminating this requirement will allow intermediaries greater latitude in developing microloan products that best meet their community's needs by offering borrowers revolving lines of credit, such as for seasonal contract needs. Congress does not intend for this flexibility to be used to make loans with long terms, such as 15 and 30 years. It broadens the eligibility criteria for potential microintermediaries. Instead of requiring intermediaries to have one year of experience in making microloans to startup, newly established, or growing small businesses and providing technical assistance to its borrowers, this legislation would deem a prospective intermediary eligible if it has equivalent experience. It expands flexibility to intermediaries to subcontract out technical assistance. Currently, intermediaries are limited to using 25 percent of their funds to assist prospective borrowers. This change allows an intermediary to allocate as much technical assistance as appropriate. This subsection also increases the percentage of technical assistance grant funds that an intermediary can use to subcontract out technical assistance. Currently, intermediaries can only subcontract 25 percent, and this legislation would raise it to 35 percent. It establishes a peer-to-peer mentoring program to help new intermediaries provide the best possible service to microentrepreneurs. Specifically, SBA would be allowed to use up to $1 million of annual appropriations for technical assistance grants to provide peer-to-peer mentoring by subcontracting with one or more national trade associations of SBA microlending intermediaries, or subcontracting with entities knowledgeable of and experienced in microlending and related technical assistance. As Congress increases the number of lending intermediaries around the country to reach more people, we want to make sure that new intermediaries have the benefits of lessons learned by other more experienced lending intermediaries. Because the microlending industry is still very young, there are few sources of conventional training available to prospective and new intermediaries. According to the National Association of SBA Microloan Intermediaries, experienced SBA microlenders are called upon frequently to assist new intermediaries in addressing issues with their loan fund, from financial management and marketing to targeting loan funds effectively to a population or business sector. While these experienced intermediaries do their best to respond to the needs of their colleagues, they currently lack the resources to respond effectively and efficiently to the growing needs of the field. Before I wrap up my statement, I would like to quickly run through the changes we made and that President Clinton signed into law on December 21. Increases the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000; Increases the average loan size for each intermediary's portfolio from $10,000 to $15,000 and increases the average loan size for specialty lenders from $7,500 to $10,000; Raises the threshold for the comparable credit test from $15,000 to $20,000; Increases the number of non-lending technical assistance (TA) providers from 25 to 55 and raises the maximum grant amount to each TA provider from $125,000 to $200,000; and, Increases the number of intermediaries SBA is authorized to fund from 200 to 300. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to co-sponsor the Commercial Fishermen Safety Act of 2001. I would like to thank the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins, for asking me to introduce this bill with her. This legislation would provide fishermen with a tax credit of up to $1,500 for the purchase of safety equipment that will help save lives at sea such as life rafts, immersion suits and Emergency Position Indicating Radio Beacons (EPIRBS). The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ranks commercial fishing as the most dangerous occupation in America, with approximately 130 deaths a year per 100,000 employees. Nearly 90 percent of all fishing related deaths result from drowning--whether a fisherman falls overboard by slipping on a wet or icy deck, is washed off deck by a wave or is dragged under by a hook or line. In the cold waters off New England and Alaska, a fisherman who goes overboard without an immersion suit has about 6 minutes to be rescued by his shipmates. But fishermen with fully functional immersion suits and life rafts are more than twice as likely to survive the sinking of their vessel. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts knows all to well the dangers of commercial fishing. Gloucester is but one example of the toll it has taken on our coastal fishing communities. Since 1650 the sea has claimed an estimated 10,000 Gloucester fishermen. During the 19th Century, Gloucester would typically lose 200 fishermen annually--about 4 percent of the city's population--to storms in the Gulf of Maine and the Grand Banks. Today, even while the National Weather Service provides timely and accurate forecasts so that we no longer have entire fleets caught on the fishing grounds during a major storm, the tragic statistics continue to roll in. The shocking loss of 11 fishermen in the Mid-Atlantic in two short months during 1998-1999 was unfortunately not an anomaly, but typical of historic trends, according to a Fishing Vessel Safety Task Force convened to investigate the problem. The Task Force also determined the common conditions in these accidents were poor vessel or equipment condition and inadequate preparation for emergencies--including basic equipment like life rafts, EPIRBs, and immersion suits. Confirming the Task Force's observations, last year the First Coast Guard District-- whose area of responsibility stretches from Maine to New Jersey -- reported the death of 13 commercial fishermen. In addition, the District reported saving 47 fishermen whose vessels had either sunk or caught fire. The Coast Guard estimates that 23 of those fishermen are alive today because they had a life raft or immersion suit. While safety is always a concern to our fishermen and their families, the most immediate worry on their minds is declining profits from dwindling stocks and closed areas. In order to meet rebuilding plans for our fish stocks regulators have been forced to implement trip limits and closed areas to rebuild stocks. These measures are working and we are beginning to see some progress in New England. However a few fishermen, primarily in small boats, will travel far out to sea in order to fish outside the closed areas or in a place with a higher trip limit. These fishermen often times cannot afford to replace or inspect old worn out life rafts and immersion suits and place themselves at extreme risk to meet their financial needs. This legislation will help these fishermen put the equipment on their boats now not later and will save lives. It is important that we act on this legislation, so that we provide a financial incentive to fishermen who are facing financial hardship as their fisheries recover, to invest in the replacement and inspection of their survival gear.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to be an original cosponsor of the Self-Employed Health Insurance Fairness Act. As the Ranking Democratic Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business, I know how important access to health insurance is for small businesses. Today, approximately 42.5 million Americans lack health insurance. Unfortunately, employees of small businesses are much more likely to be uninsured than employees of large firms. Current law allows qualified small businesses to deduct 60 percent of their health insurance payments. The cost of health insurance and the lack of a full deduction has kept many small businesses from obtaining health insurance for their employees. In 1998, an estimated 12.5 million workers were self-employed but only about 3.2 million tax returns claimed the self-employed health insurance deduction. In 1998, 34 percent of workers in firms with fewer than 10 employees lacked health insurance compared with only 13 percent of workers in firms with more than 1,000 employees. Clearly, the cost of health insurance has kept many small businesses from offering health insurance. Many small businesses simply cannot afford to pick up the difference between the deduction and the total cost of health insurance. Unfortunately, due to an inequity within our current tax law, big businesses are currently allowed to deduct 100 percent of their health insurance costs. While small businesses are slated to have their health insurance deduction increase to 100 percent in 2003, I believe this is far too long for many small businesses to wait to obtain health insurance. That is why I am proud to cosponsor the legislation introduced yesterday by Senators Bond and Durbin, which will finally end the inequity in current tax law and allow small businesses to deduct the same amount of their health insurance costs as big businesses. For many small businesses, this increase in the deduction will make it possible for them to obtain health insurance for the first time. No one in the United States should be without adequate health care because he or she cannot afford it. Access to affordable health insurance is crucial to increase the quality of life for working families across this nation. That is why we must enact this legislation during the 107th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today to pay tribute to the life of one of Massachusetts most prominent citizens and small business advocates, John C. ``Jack'' Rennie, who passed away last Monday, January 15th, at the age of 63. Jack was truly an extraordinary figure who changed the way American business looked at education, and the way education worked in Massachusetts. Born in Boston in May of 1937, Jack attended and graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy and Harvard School of Business. He later went on to earn a master's degree from Northeastern University. Using the skills he learned while serving in the Navy as a test pilot, and putting his business education and experience to good use, he founded Pacer Systems in 1968. Pacer Systems provided systems integration and product services for the Department of Defense (DoD). Pacer was later to become AverStar and expand its systems integration work beyond DoD to other Federal agencies. Jack served as Vice Chairman of AverStar from 1998 until his retirement in June of last year. His entrepreneurial spirit was not limited to his own company. In the mid-1970s, Jack was the driving force behind the creation of National Small Business United (NSBU), the nation's oldest bipartisan trade association for small businesses. In the early 1980s, Jack served as the President of the Small Business Association of New England (SBANE), and in 1983, he led the first all small business trade mission to the People's Republic of China. In 1983, he was also named the Small Business Person of the Year for Massachusetts and New England by then President Ronald Reagan. But despite all of these noteworthy accomplishments, Jack's most lasting achievements came in the area of education reform. As a business leader and entrepreneur, Jack was alarmed at the problems facing the public education system in Massachusetts and the nation. He knew that the businesses of tomorrow would demand a higher caliber of education from its employees, and that education was an integral part of America's future prosperity. Not one to sit on the sidelines, Jack combined his business expertise with his natural leadership abilities to found the Massachusetts Business Alliance for Education in 1988, which successfully led a five- year effort to reform Massachusetts' K-12 education system. His organization's 1991 report, ``Every Child a Winner,'' was the impetus for the Massachusetts Education and Reform Act in 1993. This legislation led to new state-wide testing and accountability standards, as well as increased funding for education. Prominent small businessman, and executive, Navy veteran, education reformer and community leader, Jack Rennie's passing leaves a void few people are qualified to fill, and even fewer would attempt to try. On behalf of the citizens of Massachusetts, I would like to express our sincere condolences to Jack's family and friends.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I join the number of colleagues who have spoken on the floor with respect to this agreement. I share both the respect and admiration that have been expressed for the leadership for the work they have done in order to bring us here. Particularly, I know the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, worked hard within his caucus and had to be particularly persuasive in order to reach this accord. I think this agreement respects the outcome of the election this year. It is a reflection of the closeness of the division in the Presidential race. It is, in my judgment, a fair and accurate reflection of what happened in the Senate itself with the losses that took place on one side of the aisle and a result that ended up with 50 Senators in both parties. I have argued since day one that the only fair way, and the only sensible way, to try to bring the country together and set the stage to be able to reach the compromises we needed to reach was to reflect the representation of the Senate as a whole in the committee structures. Some on the other side argued for some period of time that that is not the way it should work. We heard some people talking a few moments ago about how, if you are responsible for driving the train, you then need the extra vote in order to be able to guarantee that you can drive the train. The problem with that argument all along is, that is not what the representation of the Senate itself reflects. The second problem with the argument is that it relied essentially on the notion that, by having an extra vote, you somehow have an added power beyond the power of compromise, beyond the power of logic, beyond the power of the merits of your argument, that you have a power of the extra votes simply to drive your will through. We have seen that in operation in the last few years in the Senate, frankly. I think for many of us it has been a very negative and, frankly, a very unproductive experience. The last few years saw us avoiding the rules of the Senate in order to drive through by virtue of the fact that there were more votes on one side. In the end, you may be able to do that on occasion, whether it is the reconciliation rules that allow you to do that, or it is a particular conference rule, or the Rule XXVIII issues we have had over the last years. Those allowed you to do it. But I know the distinguished Senator from West Virginia would give the most eloquent argument in the Senate for the fact that that didn't necessarily serve the interests of the Senate nor even the interests of the country. What we have achieved today I believe stands to set the stage for the ability of the Senate to serve the interests of the country. Is there something of a sense of loss for some by virtue of this agreement? I think yes. I think that is reflected in the sort of difficulty that was presented in getting here to this moment. But in the end, I think the logic was simply so powerful that 50/50 on both sides means you divide the Senators and their committees according to that number. I admire and respect the Senator from Texas, who is one of the brightest and most articulate people in the Senate and who read from the Constitution about the powers of the Vice President to cast a vote to break a tie. Indeed, that is absolutely true. But I think most constitutional experts would tell you that is sort of the vote of last resort--that it never contemplated that the Vice President of the United States is somehow going to be represented on every single committee, and then he is going to go to each committee and cast a vote. It contemplates, if there is a tie and ultimately there is the inability of the Senate to work its will of compromise, that in that case the Vice President has the ability to cast his vote. Now the Vice President will still have that ability. That is respected in this agreement. What this agreement achieves, which I think is perhaps the most important missing ingredient of the Senate, was reflected in the comments of the Senator from West Virginia, our former leader and President pro tempore, who turned to his colleague on the Appropriations Committee and talked about trust. He talked about respect. Those committees that work the best in the Senate don't need this resolution. Those chairmen of either party who want to make their committee work effectively don't need a resolution to know the best way to get something through the Senate and through the House is to be inclusive, not exclusive. So, in fact, we in the minority were remarkably forbearing in the last year or two in not pressing the full advantage of the rules that we might have pressed in order to stop the Senate cold in its tracks in order to disrupt in the many ways possible, using the rules of parliamentary procedure, to require our colleagues to be repeatedly on the floor of the Senate to vote. In many ways, we were acquiescent, and some might blame us for having been so. I think it was out of respect for the process and out of the belief that there is a better way to get business done here. What I believe this agreement now does is set the stage for us to be able in the Senate to grow the respect and the trust about which the Senator from West Virginia talked. It gives Members the opportunity and requires Members in committee to look to the other side of the aisle to try to build the consensus necessary. We all understand in that process we will never necessarily get 100 of our colleagues or 99 of our colleagues, but we can build enough of a consensus that we can send legislation to the floor with votes of 16-4 or 18-0 or of a sufficient number at least to recognize that there has been a respect for the views of both sides rather than a willingness to simply write a piece of legislation in conference without even including one Member of the Senate of the other side of the aisle and then bring it to the floor and expect people to be happy and expect to pass something that doesn't invite a veto or that somehow has the consent of the American people. The American people are why we are here, all of us. I think this agreement today respects what the American people said on election day. I think it respects this institution. I think it gives everyone an opportunity, long awaited, to do a better job of being Senators and allowing this body to be the great deliberative entity that it is supposed to be. In the end, this resolution and the words that comprise it in its three pages are not going to do the job. Any Senator who is sufficiently disgruntled by this agreement, who figures that they will go their own path, has the ability to continue to do things as we have done them in the last few years. But I think this is a message to all Members that we have an opportunity to try to legislate in the best sense of the word, to find the compromise. There is no way this will work without that compromise. All Members need to understand that. I hope in the next days the American people will see the Senate set the example that we all want, and I know we can. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey. He is very gracious in doing so. I know he wants to make some important comments that summarize his 18 years of work and commitment on this issue. He is generous to allow us to intervene. I join in thanking the majority leader and the minority leader, Senator Daschle, Senator Reid, particularly Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens for responding to the request of a number of us from our region. I thank Senator Biden and Senator Lautenberg for their leadership again on this issue. There was a lot of passion in our caucus earlier this afternoon, and the minority leader listened to all of us very carefully. Our caucus, I must say, was united in its commitment to the notion that those of us who cared about this issue needed to have some kind of response on the floor that indicated where we will go. I am grateful for this response. The commitment on the floor openly, as it has been given, to proceed as we will proceed, particularly from the distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee and the chairman, is as good a commitment as one can get in the Senate. We have 56 sponsors of this legislation today in the Senate. With the new Senators coming in, I am absolutely confident we will have more than 60 sponsors of this legislation. I look forward to building on the legacy of Senator Moynihan and Senator Lautenberg and completing what is absolutely essential for this country, which is a rail system of which the Nation can be proud. I am very grateful to all those who have made this effort. I particularly say about the Senator from New Jersey and the Senator from New York, the two of them will be so missed with respect to their leadership and the vision they have expressed with respect to transportation issues as a whole, but particularly for those of us in the Northeast, what voices they have been in the Senate with respect to their vision for how we can more inexpensively and capably move people from here to there and increase the productivity of our country. I pledge, along with my other colleagues, to build on their example and on that vision. The day will come when we will all have a better transportation network as a consequence of their leadership. Mr. President, I know that every member of the Congress is anxious to end this session and get back to our states. We all have work to do and families waiting to celebrate the holidays. However, my colleagues Senator Lautenberg and Senator Biden are right to be angry and frustrated with this legislation. There is a small but extremely significant item missing from this legislation--the High-Speed Rail Investment Act. The Act would allow Amtrak to sell $10 billion in bonds over the next decade and provide tax credits to bondholders in lieu of interest payments. Amtrak would use this money to upgrade existing rail lines to high-speed rail capability. The Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the bill would cost just $95 million over 2 years. Over 5 years, the bill would still cost only $762 million. The High-Speed Rail Investment Act has 56 co-sponsors in the Senate. This is not a partisan issue. It is not a regional issue. It is not an urban issue. The High-Speed Rail Investment Act has the support of the National Governors Association, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Conference of State Legislatures. Nineteen newspapers, from the New York Times and Providence Journal, to the Houston Chronicle and Seattle Post Intelligencer, have called for the enactment of this legislation. Let me explain why so many people and organizations support this legislation: It is in our national interest to construct a national infrastructure that is truly intermodal. Rail transportation helps alleviate the stress placed on our environment by air and highway transportation. It is a sad fact that America's rail transportation, and its lack of a national high-speed rail system, lags well behind rail transportation in most other nations--we spend less, per capita, on rail transportation than Estonia, Myanmar, and Botswana. There is a compelling need to invest in high-speed rail. Our highways and skyways are overburdened. Intercity passenger miles have increased 80 percent since 1988, but only 5.5 percent of that has come from increased rail travel. Meanwhile, our congested skies have become even more crowded. The result, predictably, is that air travel delays are up 58 percent since 1995. In the air travel industry, bad weather in one part of the country very often results in delays in other parts of the country. There is consumer demand for more flights. But we know that our skyways and air traffic control systems are finite and that the system is overloaded. Amtrak ridership is on the rise. More than 22.5 million passengers rode Amtrak in Fiscal Year 2000, a million more than the previous year. FY 2000 was the fourth consecutive year that ridership has increased. We should welcome that increased use and support it by giving Amtrak the resources it needs to provide high-quality, dependable service. High-Speed Rail Investment Act is critical to the future of Amtrak. For half the cost of constructing the new Woodrow Wilson Bridge linking Maryland and Virginia, we can create 10 high-speed rail corridors in 28 states. For the cost of the St. Louis Airport expansion, we can improve intercity transportation in 28 states. In October we passed a $58 billion transportation appropriations bill for this fiscal year. What we are talking about today is an additional $95 million over the next two years, which will leverage $2 billion in funding. This is a sound investment. There is an alarming misconception among some members of this body and around the country that Amtrak is a money pit, where taxpayer dollars simply disappear. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the federal government has invested $380 billion in our highways and $160 billion in airports since Amtrak was created. By contrast, the federal government has spent only $23 billion on Amtrak. We have spent just 4 percent of our transportation budget on rail transportation in the last 30 years. Those who criticize Amtrak for not ``turning a profit'' employ a double standard--a double standard that is misleading, unfair and unwise. Between 1985-1995, this country spent $17 billion more on federal highways than it raised through the federal gas tax and highway trust fund. During the same period, the nation spent $30 billion more on aviation expenditures than it received through the aviation trust fund. By their misguided logic, there can be only one solution: since neither of those trust funds operated at cost, we should eliminate these programs. That's nonsense. So why are we failing to adequately invest in rail transportation? Mr. President, high-speed rail is a viable transportation alternative. There is a large and growing demand for rail service in the Northeast Corridor. Amtrak captures almost 70 percent of the business rail and air travel market between Washington and New York and 30 percent of the market share between New York and Boston. High-speed rail will undoubtedly increase that market share. These new trains, like the Acela Express that debuted in the Northeast this year, currently run at an average of only 82 miles per hour, but with track improvements, will run at 130 miles per hour. As a Nation, we have recognized the importance of having the very best communication system, and ours is the envy of the world. That investment is one of reasons our economy is the strongest in the world. And we should do the same for our transportation system. It should be equally modern and must be fully intermodal. And in order to do that, we must invest in rail transportation, invest in Amtrak and be certain to include this inexpensive legislation in the last bill of the 106th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision in the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would transfer Coast Guard Station Scituate to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA. NOAA will use the facility to serve as the headquarters for the Gerry E. Studds Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary. Since the mid-90s the Coast Guard has shared the facility with both NOAA and the Massachusetts Environmental Police, MEP. Once the Coast Guard has relocated to a new facility NOAA and the MEP will jointly use the facility to both manage and study the marine sanctuary and to perform cooperative enforcement on the water. I am happy to report that NOAA is teaming with the MEP to share resources and facilities to improve fisheries and sanctuary enforcement. It is my understanding that NOAA will be offering the same working and living spaces to the MEP that have been provided in the past by the U.S. Coast Guard. In addition the MEP will have the same berthing and dock space for their vessels. Furthermore it is my understanding that this agreement between the two agencies will mirror the current U.S. Coast Guard agreement with the MEP with respect to terms and conditions. The Stellwagen Bank Sanctuary is located at the mouth of Massachusetts Bay. It was first described in the diary of Captain Henry Stellwagen, a hydrographer for the U.S. Navy, as ``an important discovery in the location of a fifteen fathom bank lying in a line between Cape Cod and Cape Ann.'' The wealth of sea life that moved below the surface of Captain Stellwagen's vessel has drawn commercial fishing fleets for centuries. The continued use for maritime commerce, whether shipping, fishing or whale watching excursions, presents a major challenge in the enforcement of sanctuary rules. Today the sanctuary draws as many as one million visitors a year, many of them whale watchers, intent on experiencing a close encounter with a whale--particularly the gregarious and acrobatic humpback. While its numbers at Stellwagen Bank are relatively strong, the species is nevertheless listed as endangered based on its worldwide numbers. The Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act have been enacted to help protect this and other species; but the oceans are large and enforcement is difficult. I applaud the cooperation shown by NOAA and the MEP to address this critical issue in the sanctuary. This conveyance of property form the Coast Guard to NOAA will solidify this relationship between the MEP and NOAA and will at the same time provide office space and research facilities for teams of scientists to study one of the true treasures of New England, the Stellwagen Bank National Marine Sanctuary.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2001 that would transfer a Coast Guard lighthouse on Plum Island to the city of Newburyport, Massachusetts and land on Nantucket Island from the Coast Guard Loran station to the town of Nantucket, Massachusetts. I wish to thank the conferees for including these provisions in this bill. Mr. President, the Plum Island lighthouse is a national treasure. This conveyance ensures that this historic treasure will be preserved and protected for generations to come. This was included at the request of my constituents in the area. The Coast Guard has always been a good friend and neighbor in Massachusetts. I am pleased that this historic landmark will transferred to Newburyport so that it can be preserved and protected for the citizens and visitors of the City to enjoy for years to come. Mr. President, the town of Nantucket needs a small amount of property from the Coast Guard Loran Station to build a sewage treatment plant. The Coast Guard has been working with local government officials on the Island to find a solution to this problem. Initially the Coast Guard considered leasing this property to Nantucket, however the Coast Guard later determined that a conveyance was the better solution. I applaud the Coast Guard for working with Nantucket to develop this workable solution.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say a few words about the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000 and the process to bring this legislation to the floor as part of the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill. First, however, I would like to thank Senate Committee on Small Business Chairman Kit Bond, House Small Business Committee Chairman Jim Talent, House Small Business Committee Ranking Member Nydia Velazquez, our staffs, Laura Ayoud with Senate Legislative Counsel and John Ratliff with the House Legislative Counsel's office for their efforts on reauthorizing programs vital to America's small businesses. We have all worked long and hard to get to this point. The Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000, H.R. 5667, as included in the Fiscal Year 2001 Omnibus Appropriations bill, contains a good portion of the conference report negotiated by the Senate and House Committees on Small Business. Despite the rough start, partisan wrangling over unrelated issues, broken deals and lengthy delays, I am pleased that we can at last pass this legislation so critical to our nation's small businesses. Unfortunately, it is our small businesses that have suffered the most in this climate of uncertainty, waiting, anticipating and hoping that the Congress would complete its work and pass this reauthorization package. While I am pleased that we have reached an agreement that will ensure continuation of valuable Small Business Administration (SBA) programs, I am greatly concerned with the breakdown in the legislative process that has prevented what is normally a bi-partisan reauthorization bill from passing in a timely manner. To briefly elaborate on this, when the original agreement between the Senate and the House was concluded, our bipartisan legislation was commandeered by the Republican leadership and provisions dealing with tax cuts, assisted suicide and medicare give-backs to HMOs were added without my knowledge or consent. The President threatened to veto such a package. Additionally, a Wellstone provision agreed to during negotiations was removed. The Wellstone provision would have created a 3 year $9 million pilot project to build the capacity of community development venture capital firms through research, training and management assistance. Senator Wellstone had already agreed to make this program a three year pilot project and cut the funding down from $20 million over four years. But the provision was removed from the Conference Report without consulting either of us. I am also disappointed that some provisions included in the Senate passed version of the Small Business Reauthorization Act, as well as in the Administration's budget request, were not included in the final version of this legislation. The original Senate version contained several provisions important to the Administration, Members of the Senate Small Business Committee and the Senate in general. In the spirit of compromise, the Senate agreed to drop several of these important provisions, with an understanding, in many cases, to revisit these issues in the 107th Congress. Chairman Bond agreed to remove his provision regarding the ``Independent Office of Advocacy Act,'' which I cosponsored, and which passed the Senate as a separate bill. This Committee has heard on more than one occasion that providing separate funding for the Office of Advocacy is the best means to ensure its autonomy. I look forward to working with the Chairman on this issue in the next Congress. A provision requested by Senator Ted Stevens setting up a HUBZone pilot program in Alaska and a provision requested by Senator Dianne Feinstein to allow fruit and vegetable packing houses hit by the 1998 freeze to participate in the SBA's Disaster Loan program were removed as well. I have assured Senator Feinstein that the Committee will look further into this matter in the next Congress in an effort to allow the SBA to provide relief if it is warranted. A provision requested by the Administration and strongly supported by Senator Paul Wellstone and myself was also dropped. This provision would have created a Native American Small Business Development Center (SBDC) Network that would have worked together with the traditional SBDC Network, but would have been separately funded. I have received assurances from both Chairman Bond and the House Committee on Small Business that this issue will be addressed in the next Congress, along with concerns raised by Senator Inouye about the participation of Native Hawaiian Organizations in the 8(a) program. The Senate and House Committees on Small Business are in agreement that this is an important issue for Native Americans, considered a disadvantaged group for the purposes of SBA programs, and one that needs greater focus. Provisions regarding the Quadrennial Small Business Summit, the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel Technical Amendments Act, Development Company Debenture Interest Rates, Fraud and False Statements and Financial Institution Civil Penalties were also removed. The final version of this legislation does include some of the provisions I requested regarding improvements to the Microloan program. The changes to the Microloan program stemmed from the President's Fiscal Year 2001 budget request and had broad support in the Senate, as well the support of several Members of the House Committee on Small Business. I have long been a firm believer in microloans and their power to help people gain economic independence while improving the communities in which they live. With a relatively small investment, the Microloan program helps turn ideas into small businesses adding up to sel-sufficiency for many families and big returns for the taxpayers. Changes to the program, which resulted from a roundtable Committee meeting in the Senate and discussions with the Administration and users of the Microloan program, will be a great boon to the effectiveness and availability of Microloans. Specifically, provisions increasing the maximum loan amount from $25,000 to $35,000 and increasing the average loan size to $15,000 were included. However, changes to make the program more effective, such as increasing the number of intermediaries or authorizing reimbursement for peer-to-peer mentoring, were weakened or removed because the House did not have time to hold hearings and study them thoroughly. I believe all of the changes in the Senate bill make sense, have broad bipartisan and bicameral support, and would go a long way toward providing increased access to capital, especially for minority entrepreneurs. I want to make it clear to my colleagues who support the Microloan program that I will continue my efforts to strengthen this program and will work with Chairman Bond and our House counterparts to make these remaining improvements in the next Congress. I also intend to revisit the Microloan funding issue before the end of the three-year reauthorization period if the level authorized is inadequate to meet program needs. While I am disappointed that some of the Senate changes were not included in the final compromise, this legislation is crucial for our nation's small businesses. It reauthorizes all of the SBA's programs, setting the funding levels for the credit and business development programs, and making selected improvements. Without this legislation, the 504 loan program and the Small Business Innovation Research program would shut down; the venture capital debenture program would shut down; and funding to the states for their small business development centers would be in jeopardy. The SBA's contribution is significant. In the past eight years, the SBA has helped almost 375,000 small businesses get more than $80 billion in loans. That's double what small businesses had received in the preceding 40 years since the agency's creation. The SBA is better run than ever before, with four straight years of clean financial audits; it has a quarter less staff, but guarantees twice as many loans; and its credit and finance programs are a bargain. For a relatively small investment, taxpayers are leveraging their money to help thousands of small businesses every year and fuel the economy. Let me just give you one example. In the 7(a) program, taxpayers spend only $1.24 for every $100 loaned to small business owners. Well known successes like Winnebago and Ben & Jerry's are clear examples of the program's effectiveness. Overall, I agree with the program levels in the three-year reauthorization bill. As I said during the Small Business Committee's hearing on SBA's budget earlier in the year, I believe the program levels are realistic and appropriate based on the growing demand for the programs and the prosperity of the country. I also think they are adequate should the economy slow down and lenders have less cash to invest. Consistent with SBA's mission, in good times or bad, we need to make sure that small businesses have access to credit and capital so that our economy benefits from the services, products and jobs they provide. As First Lady and Senator-elect Hillary Rodham Clinton says, we don't want good ideas dying in the parking lot of banks. We also want a safety net when our states are hit hard by a natural disaster. There are many members of this Chamber, and their constituents, who know all too well the value of SBA disaster loans after floods, fires and tornadoes. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that we included legislation to extend the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for 8 more years as part of this comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. While I am very sorry the process has taken this long, in no way should that imply that there is not strong support for the SBIR program, the Small Business Administration, or our nation's innovative small businesses. The SBIR program is of vital importance to the high-technology sector throughout the country. For the past decade, growth in the high- technology field has been a major source of the resurgence of the American economy we now enjoy. While many Americans know of the success of Microsoft, Oracle, and many of the dot.com companies, few realize that it is America's small businesses, working in industries like software, hardware, medical research, aerospace technologies, and bio- technology, that are helping to fuel this resurgence--and that it is the SBIR program that makes much of this possible. By setting aside Federal research and development dollars specifically for small high- tech businesses, the SBIR program is making important contributions to our economy. These companies have helped launch the space shuttle; conducted research on Hepatitis C; and made B-2 Bomber missions safer and more effective. Since the start of the SBIR program in 1983, more than 17,600 firms have received over $9.8 billion in SBIR funding agreements. In 1999 alone, nearly $1.1 billion was awarded to small high-tech firms through the SBIR program, assisting more than 4,500 firms. The SBIR program has been, and remains, an excellent example of how government and small business can work together to advance the cause of both science and our economy. Access to risk capital is vital to the growth of small high technology companies, which accounted for more then 40 percent of all jobs in the high technology sector of our economy in 1998. The SBIR program gives these companies access to Federal research and development money and encourages those who do the research to commercialize their results. Because research is crucial to ensuring that our nation is the leader in knowledge-based industries, which will generate the largest job growth in the next century, the SBIR program is a good investment for the future. I am proud of the many SBIR successes that have come from my state of Massachusetts. Companies like Advanced Magnetics of Cambridge, Massachusetts, illustrate that success. Advanced Magnetics used SBIR funding to develop a drug making it easier for hospitals to find tumors in patients. The development of this drug increased company sales and allowed Advanced Magnetics to hire additional employees. This is exactly the kind of economic growth we need in this nation, because jobs in the high-technology field pay well and raise everyone's standard of living. That is why I am such a strong supporter and proponent of the SBIR program and fully support its reauthorization. This legislation also includes my legislation establishing a New Markets Venture Capital program at SBA. This small business legislation is designed to promote economic development, business investment, productive wealth and stable jobs in ``new markets,'' low- and moderate-income communities where there is little to no sustainable economic activity but many overlooked business opportunities. The venture capital program is modeled after the Small Business Administration's successful Small Business Investment Company program. The SBIC program has been so successful that it has generated more than $19 billion in investments in more than 13,000 businesses since 1992. With the passage of the ``New Markets'' legislation, low- and moderate-income areas will have increased opportunities to join the economic boom in America and this targeted venture capital will make a powerful difference in places like the inner-city areas of Boston's Roxbury or New York's East Harlem, and rural areas like Kentucky's Appalachia or the Mississippi's Delta region. This legislation also contains H.R. 2614, which reauthorizes SBA's 504 loan program, which passed the Senate on June 14, 2000. The bill and our improvements make common-sense changes to this critical economic development tool. These changes will greatly increase the opportunity for small business owners to build a facility, buy more equipment, or acquire a new building. In turn, small business owners will be able to expand their companies and hire new workers, ultimately resulting in an improved local economy. Since 1980, over 25,000 businesses have received more than $20 billion in fixed-asset financing through the 504 program. In my home state of Massachusetts, over the last decade small businesses have received $318 million in 504 loans that created more than 10,000 jobs. The stories behind those numbers say a lot about how SBA's 504 loans help business owners and communities. For instance, in Fall River, Massachusetts, owners Patricia Ladino and Russell Young developed a custom packing plant for scallops and shrimp that has grown from ten to 30 employees in just two short years and is in the process of another expansion that will add as many as 25 new jobs. Under this reauthorization bill, the maximum debenture size for Section 504 loans has been increased from $750,000 to $1 million. For loans that meet special public policy goals, the maximum debenture size has been increased from $1 million to $1.3 million. It has been a decade since we increased the maximum guarantee amount. If we were to change it to keep pace with inflation, the maximum guarantee would be approximately $1.25 million instead of $1 million. By not implementing such a sharp increase, we are striking a balance between rising costs and increasing the government's exposure. I am pleased to say that this legislation also includes a provision assisting women-owned businesses, which I first introduced in 1998 as part of S. 2448, the Small Business Loan Enhancement Act. This provision adds women-owned businesses to the current list of businesses eligible for the larger public policy loans. As the role of women-owned businesses in our economy continues to increase, we would be remiss if we did not encourage their growth and success by adding them to this list. Mr. President, the 504 loan program gets results. It expands the opportunities of small businesses, creates jobs and improves communities. It is crucial that it be reauthorized, I am pleased this legislation has been included in this package. Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) are also reauthorized under this legislation. SBDCs serve tens of thousands of small business owners and prospective owners every year. This bill takes a giant step to retool the formula that determines how much funding each state receives. This is an important program for all of our states and we want no confusion about its funding. Without this change, some states would have suffered sharp decreases in funding, disproportionate to their needs. I appreciate and am glad that the SBA and the Association of Small Business Development Centers worked with me to develop an acceptable formula so that small businesses continue to be adequately served. As I said previously, I plan to revisit the Native American SBDC Network issue next Congress. This legislation also reauthorized the National Women's Business Council. For such a tiny office, with minimal funding and staff, it has managed to make a significant contribution to our understanding of the impact of women-owned businesses in our economy. It has also done pioneer work in raising awareness of business practices that work against women-owned business, such as some in the area of Federal procurement. Recently, the Council completed two studies that documented the world of Federal procurement and its impact on women- owned businesses. According to the National Foundation for Women Business Owners, over the past decade, the number of women-owned businesses in this country has grown by 103 percent to an estimated 9.1 million firms. These firms generate almost $3.6 trillion in sales annually and employ more than 27.5 million workers. With the impact of women-owned businesses on our economy increasing at an unprecedented rate, Congress relies on the National Women's Business Council to serve as its eyes and ears as it anticipates the needs of this burgeoning entrepreneurial sector. Since it was established in 1988, the bipartisan Council has provided important unbiased advice and counsel to Congress. This Act recognizes the Council's work and re-authorizes it for three years, from FY 2001 to 2003. It also increases the annual appropriation from $600,000 to $1 million, which will allow the council to support new and ongoing research, and produce and distribute reports and recommendations prepared by the Council. The Historically Underutilized Business Zone, or ``HUBZone'' program, which passed this Committee in 1997, has tremendous potential to create economic prosperity and development in those areas of our Nation that have not seen great rewards, even in this time of unprecedented economic health and stability. This program is similar to my New Markets legislation in that it creates an incentive to hire from, and perform work in, areas of this country that need assistance the most. This bill would authorize the HUBZone program at $10 million for the next 3 years, which is $5 million above the Administration's request. Additionally, this legislation includes very important provisions to allow those groups which were inadvertently missed when this legislation was crafted--namely Indian tribal governments and Alaska Native Corporations--to participate in the program. I appreciate the willingness of the Committee on Indian Affairs to work with our Committee to create increased HUBZone opportunities for Native Americans. As I stated, the HUBZone section does not contain any provision addressing the interaction of the HUBZone and 8(a) minority contracting programs. I believe that the 8(a) program is an important and necessary tool to help minority small businesses receive access to government contracts. The Chairman and I agree that there is a need to enhance the participation of both 8(a) and HUBZone companies in Federal procurement. It is my intention that the Senate Committee on Small Business consider the issue of enhancing small business procurement in the next Congress. This legislation also includes a provision relating to SBA's cosponsorship authority. This authority allows SBA and its programs to cosponsor events and activities with private sector entities, thus leveraging the Agency's limited resources. The legislation extends this authority for three additional years. Mr. President, let me conclude by reminding my colleagues that all of our states benefit from the success and abundance of small businesses. This legislation makes their jobs a little easier. I ask my colleagues for their support of this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today in support of a provision in H.R. 2903, the Atlantic Striped Bass Conservation Act. This legislation authorizes a population study of Atlantic striped bass to determine if there is sufficient diversity in year classes to ensure successful recruitment and healthy stocks for continued commercial and recreational fishing. The Atlantic striped bass is considered one of the success stories in recent fisheries management. Striped bass stocks along the Atlantic coast experienced precipitous declines during the 1970s and early 1980s. This decline was attributed to the increase in the number of recreational and commercial fishermen, and the use of increasingly efficient gear. Because the decline was widespread and encompassed multiple jurisdictions, recovery efforts were delegated to the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC) under the authority of the Striped Bass Conservation Act of 1984, and later the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Act of 1993. The ASMFC consists of coastal member states from Maine to Florida. In an effort to rebuild striped bass stocks, the ASMFC halted both commercial and recreational fishing for striped bass beginning in the mid- 1980s. The ASMFC began to allow limited recreational and commercial fishing for striped bass in the early 1990s, when striped bass began to show signs of recovery. Today even though stock abundance remains high, cautious vigilance of coast-wide fisheries performance and its impact on resource conditions should continue to be a primary task of the ASMFC. The Atlantic Striped Bass, or stripers as they are known in the Bay state, are the number one recreational fishery in Massachusetts. In 1999 recreational fishermen caught 4.7 million stripers in the Bay state, this represents 33 percent of all stripers caught along the East coast from North Carolina to Maine. While most states allow anglers to keep two fish, Massachusetts allows anglers one fish, so that even though 33 percent of all stripers are caught in Massachusetts, only 10 percent of the recreational landings occur in Massachusetts. The difference between caught and landed fish is fish caught and released. Massachusetts has a small commercial fishery for the striped bass as well. In 1999 commercial fishermen landed 40,000 stripers, which represented 4 percent of the commercial harvest on the East coast. These figures do not even begin to represent what stripers mean to our economy. In a 1996 US Fish and Wildlife Service survey the agency estimated that 886,000 anglers spent 10.7 million days fishing for striped bass in salt water during 1996. Average expenditures for all Atlantic Coast saltwater trips were about $800 per angler in 1996, for a total estimated annual expenditure in this fishery of $762 million. Stripers are an anadromous fish that frequents brackish waters and depends on a healthy estuarine ecosystem for its survival. As such, it is affected by non-point source pollution and habitat loss and degradation, more so than an offshore fish. I am very concerned that without a national program to identify and reduce sources of non-point pollution, that eventually our striper stocks will again crash as they did in the 1970s. On two occasions the United States Senate has passed S. 1534, the Coastal Zone Management Act of 2000. This bill authorizes states to apply for funding that specifically targets non-point pollution, and in turn help striped bass populations. Mr. President, the sound policies of S. 1534 will help the striped bass.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there is much to applaud in the bill we are taking up today, H.R. 5640, ``The American Homeownership and Economic Opportunity Act.'' I note that this legislation is identical to legislation I have cosponsored, S. 3274. Some of the provisions of H.R. 5640 are contained in bipartisan legislation, S. 2733, which I have introduced with my colleagues Senator Santorum, Senator Sarbanes, and others. These are designed to increase the stock of affordable housing for elderly and disabled Americans by expanding the pool of available capital. It will also expand the availability of services to help improve the quality of life for elderly and residents of HUD-assisted properties and other eligible people in the neighborhood. The legislation also includes important reforms to the manufactured housing statute. These reforms provide significant new consumer protections for owners of manufactured homes. For example, the bill creates national minimum installation standards to make sure manufactured homes are not just manufactured correctly--an area that has long been under federal control--but that they are installed properly and perform as advertised to provide high quality, safe, durable, and affordable housing for their occupants. In addition, the new law establishes a dispute resolution process which, for the first time, will enable a consumer determine whether a problem with a manufactured home is due to a manufacturing or installation defect, and then get the defect corrected. Overall, the manufactured housing title of this bill will modernize the regulatory structure for the industry in a way that gives consumers a full and equal voice. Such modernization will help the industry incorporate new technologies more quickly, making this housing more efficient, more attractive, safer, and cheaper. Manufactured housing can and should be a bigger part of this nation's effort to address the rising need for affordable housing. This legislation will help make this a reality. I also concur with remarks made in the House of Representatives by Chairman Leach and Representatives LaFalce and Frank in the House on October 24, 2000, regarding the issue of contracting out certain monitoring and oversight functions required by the legislation. HUD needs to be able to manage these contracts in a way that allows them to get the work done. Finally, I thank Senator Shelby for his leadership on this issue. Senator Shelby deserves great credit for making this legislation possible. He worked through every issue and concern raised by the various parties to make this day possible. I also thank Lendell Porterfield from the staff of Senator Shelby. Mr. Porterfield was highly professional and extremely knowledgeable. He provided the leadership at a staff level that enabled this bill to become law. In addition, Senator Edwards and his staff, Josh Stein, were instrumental in negotiating the final compromise. They ensured that the interests of consumers were balanced with the needs of industry. Likewise, the leadership of Senator Sarbanes and his staff helped ensure that this process would continue to be bipartisan and productive. Senator Bayh also played an important role. I want to make a special note of the work of Christen Schaefer of the Banking Committee staff, without whose hard work and dedication this legislation could not become law. There are many other solid achievements in this legislation that will improve housing opportunities for many Americans. However, as much as there is to welcome in this bill, it is as notable for what is missing. Most importantly, this bill does not include any of the numerous bipartisan proposals, some of which passed the House with overwhelming majorities, that would provide for the preservation of existing affordable housing that is fast being lost; nor does it include any of the bipartisan proposals to facilitate the construction of new affordable housing. In particular, I very much regret the exclusion of the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation that I introduced with a number of my colleagues from both sides of the aisle. Finally, it does not include some important provisions that would encourage and support homeownership, such as low downpayment FHA loans for teachers, police officers, and other municipal employees. Everyone who has looked at the issue of housing with an open mind, or has tried to purchase or rent a home, understands that we face an affordable housing crisis. A recent study issued by the National Low Income Housing Coalition highlights the fact that there is no city, county, or state where a minimum wage job is adequate to enable a working person to afford the typical rent on 2 bedroom home. In tight markets such as Boston, New York, Denver, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Austin, San Francisco, and many others around the country, affordable housing is out of reach to average working families. The Federal Government has an important role to play here, and I will be working very hard in the upcoming Congress to make sure that we pass new legislation, such as my trust fund legislation, that will get the Government back in the business of encouraging the production of new affordable housing. I support the legislation before us, and I hope that my colleagues will join me in the coming Congress to complete the effort we have begun here today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to make a few remarks in support of H.R. 5461, the Shark Finning Prohibition Act, which will the Senate has passed today and which will be forwarded to President Clinton for his signature. H.R. 5461 is identical to a provision I authored, along with Senator Snowe, in Senate Amendment 4320. That provision was then introduced in the House by Representative Cunningham as a stand alone bill and passed the House on October 30, 2000. I want to thank Senators Hollings and Snowe, who helped move this legislation through the Commerce Committee and the Senate. And, I thank Representative Cunningham for his work. Shark finning is the practice of catching a shark, removing its fins and returning the remainder of the shark to the sea. It is highly wasteful practice since only a very small portion of the shark is consumed and the rest is dumped back into the sea. The National Marine Fisheries Service already prohibits shark finning in the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico. This legislation would expand that ban into the Pacific and create a consistent national policy by amending the Magnuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Sharks are among the most biologically vulnerable species in the ocean. Their slow growth, late maturity and small number of offspring leave them exceptionally vulnerable to over fishing and slow to recover from depletion. At the same time, sharks, as top predators, are essential to maintaining the balance of life in the sea. While many of our other highly migratory species such as tunas and swordfish are subject to rigorous management regimes, sharks have largely been overlooked until recently. By ending the wasteful practice of finning, we will, I hope, protect shark populations. However, it is important that the passage of this legislation is only the beginning of national efforts to protect sharks and their marine ecosystems. There are other threats to sharks in addition to finning in domestic waters. These include directed fisheries, by-catch and the use of non-selective gear. And, importantly, we must recognize that shark finning takes place in foreign and international waters, not just the United States waters. The global shark fin trade involves at least 125 countries, and the demand for shark fins and other shark products has driven dramatic increases in shark fishing and shark mortality around the world. We must tackle these issues, as well. I want to note that in the Commerce Committee we tried to address the issue of international shark finning more aggressively and, I believe, more appropriately. Senator Hollings and I introduced S. 2831, the Shark Conservation Act of 2000. This proposal would have (1) mandated that the Secretary of Commerce report to Congress on progress being made domestically and internationally to reduce shark finning; (2) established a procedure to certify whether governments have adopted shark conservation measures; (3) banned the import of sharks or shark parts from countries that do not meet these certification procedures; and (4) provided technical assistance to foreign nations in an attempt to promote compliance. Unfortunately, this comprehensive proposal was rejected by the House. We therefore sought the middle ground of the proposal in H.R. 5461. The legislation we will pass today (1) calls on the Administration to initiate or continue discussions with other countries to ban shark finning; (2) requires the collection of information on trade in shark fins and directing the Secretary of Commerce to report the findings to Congress; and (3) establishes a research program to help improve shark stock assessments, reduce incidental catch, and better utilize shark captured legally. This is a start, but only a start. I hope that my colleagues and the advocacy groups that advocated for this proposal will continue to work for additional international conservation measures. Finally, my bill would authorize a Western Pacific longline fisheries cooperative research program to provide information for shark stock assessments, identify fishing gear and practices that prevent or minimize incidental catch of sharks and ensure maximum survivorship of released sharks, and provide data on the international shark fin trade. Mr. President, the United States is a global leader in fisheries conservation and management. I believe this legislation provides us the opportunity to further this role, and take the first step in addressing an international fisheries management issue. In addition, I believe the U.S. should continue to lead efforts at the United Nations and international conventions to achieve coordinated international management of sharks, including an international ban on shark-finning. I look forward to working with Committee members on this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly believe that reform of our bankruptcy laws is necessary. During the 105th and 106th Congress, I supported legislation to reform bankruptcy laws and end the abuse of the system. However, I am unable to support the conference report of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill because I believe it is unfair and unbalanced, was completed without appropriate consideration by the Minority party, and is unfair to many working families and single mothers. Sponsors of bankruptcy reform have justified the legislation by arguing that the bill is necessary because we are in the midst of a ``bankruptcy crisis.'' I am among those who believe that, too often, bankruptcy is used as an economic tool to avoid responsibility for unsound decisions and reckless spending. There has been a decline in the stigma of filing for bankruptcy, and appropriate changes are necessary to ensure that bankruptcy is no longer considered a lifestyle choice. However, I must point out that the current numbers show that the bankruptcy rate is lower than it was when the bill was first introduced. Indeed, if the bankruptcy reform act had been enacted into law, the sponsors would undoubtedly now be taking credit for this turnaround in the bankruptcy numbers. However, the current decline came about without Congressional intervention, demonstrating that to some degree, free-market forces work to correct any over-use of the bankruptcy system. The reason is that lenders and credit card companies, in an effort to maximize their profits, can and do respond to an unexpected increase in personal bankruptcies by curtailing new lending to consumers who are credit risks. However, there are still those who will game the system, and we should narrowly craft legislation to address such abuse. Unfortunately, this bill fails to take a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform. I had hoped that through a legitimate legislative process we would arrive at a compromise that would have ended the abuses but still provided our most vulnerable citizens with adequate protections. This bill does just the opposite: It harms those who most need bankruptcy protection and protects those who don't. For instance, the bill's safe harbor will not benefit individuals in most need of help. Because the safe harbor is based on the combined income of the debtor and the debtor's spouse, many single mothers who are separated from their husbands and who are not receiving child support will not be able to take advantage of the safe harbor provision. In other words, a single mother who is being deprived of needed support from a well-off spouse is further harmed by this bill, which will deem the full income of that spouse available to pay debts for the safe harbor determination. Moreover, the bill jeopardizes the post-bankruptcy collection of child support. By creating many new types of nondischargeable debts in favor of credit card companies, the bill would place banks in direct competition with single parents trying to collect child support after bankruptcy. In addition, the bill gives creditors new levers to coerce reaffirmations, in which debtors must agree to pay back debts that otherwise would have been discharged, so that those debts also will compete with child support obligations. Finally, the claim of the bill's sponsors that it ``puts child support first'' is an example of the worst kind of Washington cynicism. Although the bill moves child support claims from seventh to first priority in Chapter 7 cases, the provision is virtually meaningless because almost no Chapter 7 cases involve any distribution of assets to creditors. Few debtors have any assets to distribute to priority unsecured creditors after secured creditors receive the value of their collateral. Therefore, this change would affect fewer than 1 percent of cases. On the other hand, the conference report protects wealthy debtors by allowing them to use overly broad homestead exemptions to shield assets from their creditors. The homestead exemption has been used by wealthy individuals to shelter millions of dollars in expensive homes to avoid repaying their creditors. The Conference Report would delete the Senate amendment that provided a firm homestead cap of $100,000 and instead allow wealthy debtors to retain expensive homes while filing for bankruptcy, so long as the debtor owned the property for two years before the bankruptcy filing. Because wealthier debtors would have no difficulty tying up their creditors for a relatively short period of time, the two-year residency requirement would have no real effect on debtors moving to states with unlimited homestead amounts to take advantage of this loophole. The bill changes nothing, as long as the well-counseled debtor makes his homestead purchase at least 24 months before filing. But, the 24-month rule unfairly differentiates between consumers who are sophisticated enough to plan in advance for homestead protection and which are not. The whole point of bankruptcy reform is to create accountability for both creditors and debtors. The first part of that equation is missing entirely in H.R. 2415. At the same time, the bill fails in any way to impose any restrictions on these industries with regard to the way they provide credit to those who can least afford to incur a great deal of debt. The bill does not require important specific disclosures on monthly credit card statements that would show the time it will take to pay a balance and the cost of the credit if only minimum payments are made. This type of disclosure was included in the legislation passed by the Senate in 1998 and should be part of any reform bill. The conference report also excludes Senate-passed amendments that would have provided credit information in electronic credit card applications over the Internet and protections against finance charges being imposed on credit card payments made within the creditor-provided grace period. It also does nothing to discourage lenders from further increasing the debt of consumers who are already overburdened with debt. I am also very disappointed that the conference report does not include an amendment offered by Senator Collins and myself, which was included in the Senate bill, that would make Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which now applies to family farmers, applicable for fishermen. I believe that this provision would have made bankruptcy a more effective tool to help fishermen reorganize effectively and allow them to keep fishing while they do so. Finally, this bill is the result of a conference process that was a sham. In October, the House appointed conferees for the Bankruptcy Reform Act and without holding a conference meeting, the Majority filed a conference report striking international security legislation and replacing it with a reference to a bankruptcy reform bill introduced earlier that same day. This makes a mockery of the legislative process and demeans the United States Senate. I am hopeful that during the 107th Congress, we can develop bipartisan legislation that would encourage responsibility and reduce abuses of the bankruptcy system.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly believe that reform of our bankruptcy laws is necessary. During the 105th and 106th Congress, I have supported legislation to reform bankruptcy laws and end the abuse of the system. However, I am very disappointed that I am unable to support the conference report of the Bankruptcy Reform Bill because I believe it is unfair and unbalanced, was completed without appropriate consideration by the Minority party, includes an inequitable homestead provision and is unfair to many working families. I am very concerned that the decision to file for bankruptcy is too often used as an economic tool to avoid responsibility for unsound business decisions and reckless acts by both individuals and businesses. There has been a decline in the stigma of filing for bankruptcy and appropriate changes are necessary to ensure that bankruptcy is no longer considered a lifestyle choice. This legislation includes a number of important reforms which I support. I am pleased that the small business provisions originally included in the Senate bill have been changed to give small businesses adequate time to develop a reorganization plan during bankruptcy proceedings. I had previously included an amendment to the Senate bill that increased this time for small businesses. I am also pleased that the conference report includes my amendment to expand the credit committee membership under Chapter 11 bankruptcies to include small businesses. I believe this will ensure better access and information for small businesses creditors. Unfortunately, reasonable and necessary reforms were included in a bill that on the whole fails to take a balanced approach to bankruptcy reform. I had hoped that through a legitimate legislative process we would arrive at a compromise that would have ended the abuses but still provided our most vulnerable citizens with adequate protections. Instead, I believe that the conference report protects wealthy debtors by allowing them to use overly broad homestead exemptions to shield assets from their creditors. The Senate passed, by a bipartisan vote of 76-22, an amendment to create a $100,000 nationwide cap on any homestead exemption. However, this provision was not included in the Conference Report. Instead, the conferees included a meaningless cap with a two- year residency requirement that wealthy debtors could easily avoid. Moreover, the bill's safe harbor is illusory and will not benefit individuals in most need of help. Because the safe harbor is based on the combined income of the debtor and the debtor's spouse, many single mothers who are separated from their husbands and who are not receiving child support will not be able to take advantage of the safe harbor provision. I am also very disappointed that the conference report does not include an amendment offered by Senator Collins and myself, which was included in the Senate bill, that would make Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code, which now applies to family farmers, applicable for fishermen. I believe that this provision would have made bankruptcy a more effective tool to help fishermen reorganize effectively and allow them to keep fishing while they do so. In addition to its failure to protect many consumers, the bill fails to require that the credit industry share responsibility for reducing the number of bankruptcy cases. It does not require specific disclosures on monthly credit card statements that would show the time it would take to pay off a balance and the cost of credit if only minimum payments are made. It also does nothing to discourage lenders from further increasing the debt of consumers who are already overburdened with debt. Finally, this bill is the result of a conference process that violated and deprived the rights of Senators. In October, the House appointed conferees for the Bankruptcy Reform Act and without holding a conference meeting, the Majority filed a conference report striking international security legislation and replacing with a reference to a bankruptcy reform bill introduced earlier that same day. This makes a mockery of the legislative process and demeans the United States Senate. I am hopeful that during the 107th Congress, we can develop bipartisan legislation that would encourage responsibility and reduce abuses of the bankruptcy system.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from New Mexico follows on the Republican side after the Senator from Texas.

Mr. KERRY. Absolutely.

Mr. KERRY. I would modify the unanimous consent request.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, on behalf of the minority leader, I would be constrained to object.