John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of our time. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. I yield 45 seconds to the Senator from California.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time remains on our side?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just point out that the very thing he just called for they voted against, bringing in industry. They came in and took away the cap. Each time there is something they want, they take it away and use it as an excuse to kill the bill. I yield 35 seconds to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. explanation of vote

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say on behalf of my colleagues, that with respect to the last amendment, their vote was a reflection, I know, of grave concerns on our side of the aisle about the Senate putting its stamp of approval on a $4,000-per-hour fee. Some may think that is a fee that they are willing to attach automatically based on a date, but I think a lot of people felt very strongly that the independence of the judiciary and its capacity to be able to analyze according to the very same standards in the Gorton amendment--the Gorton amendment borrowed from our bill each of the categories of evaluation that would be applied by the courts. So in effect, they are really mandating an outcome which may or may not fit for one case or another case. I know I heard colleague after colleague suggest to me that, as a Senator, they did not want to approve of a $4,000-an-hour fee. So that is the distinction here. Some were willing to put their approval on it; some were not. But the fact is, the amendment carried by one vote, and that is the will of the Senate. We now find ourselves--I want to express my agreement with the Senator from Arizona--we have traveled a 3-week journey, and we have waded through the most difficult issues. The closeness of the votes on some of them clearly indicates the difficulty of trying to come to agreement, but nevertheless, the Senate has spoken on those. We have resolved the most significant issues--the liability issue, the question of look-back amendments. The bill was strengthened in those regards. We resolved the marriage penalty. Again, for some, the bill was strengthened by providing a certain component of a tax cut and a drug program. So those are the fundamental components of this legislation--together with an FDA regulatory process that is essential to the capacity to deal with tobacco. Therefore, that brings us to the point now where the Senator from Kentucky is about to tackle the really last tough issue with respect to this legislation. Speaking on behalf of the Senators on our side of the aisle, there are more than 40 Senators that I know of prepared to vote for this legislation now. More than 40 Senators are prepared to vote to end debate now, and more than 40 Senators are prepared to vote for the legislation in order that we can move it to the House and ultimately to a conference. So the real test before the Senate this week is the test of whether or not the members of the Republican Party are going to join those 40 to create the critical mass necessary to pass tobacco legislation. If we pass it, it will be because we come together as a Senate. If we fail to pass it, it will be because the Republicans decided they did not want to pass it. Given the number of Democrats in our caucus--45--to have more than 40 prepared to vote now on a bill is significant. So that is where we find ourselves. I hope that in the next hours we will resolve the farm issue satisfactorily. To the degree there are any amendments left on the Democrat side, we are prepared to enter very short time agreements if indeed there will be those amendments. So we have the ability on this side of the aisle to move rapidly; not to tie up the Senate in knots, but to pass competent tobacco legislation. And it is my fervent hope that in the interests of the last 3\1/2\ or 3 weeks-plus, and the several years of labor that has been engaged in by a number of different people in the Senate before this bill ever came to the Commerce Committee, that we would be able to do that. I think the Senator from Arizona shares that hope. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. If I can respond, I do not think the Senator needs a lot of help. I think the Senator has adequately--more than adequately-- described the virtues of what is being attempted here. I just say to the Senator, in my State of Massachusetts we have discovered, through research, that our addicted citizens are spending $1.3 billion a year to try to get unaddicted--$1.3 billion that is diverted from money they could be putting into schools, putting into their kids' education, that they are paying for nicotine patches, they are paying for the gum, for the hypnosis, for counseling. It is an extraordinary amount of money. This is happening because almost 90 percent of those citizens got hooked when the tobacco companies targeted them specifically as teenagers. We have now seen--and it is in the record--the degree to which that targeting was a very purposeful replenishment effort for business. They said to themselves, ``We've got to replenish the people who are dying off, and we've got to get these people hooked when they are young.'' So, R.J. Reynolds, Philip Morris, Brown & Williamson--their own documents testify to the degree to which they were targeting teenagers in order to get them hooked forever. I do not want to abuse the courtesy of the Senator from Rhode Island, who is expected to proceed forward here. I think he has some time problems, so I do want to allow him to go on with his amendment. And then I know the Senator from Texas is going to go. But the Senator from Nebraska is absolutely correct. The tax cut in this bill comes from the reduction of the cost of health care to all Americans, the reduction in the cost of lost productivity. All the things the Senator from Nebraska has said are correct. I yield the floor. Mr. REED addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the plan this morning is for us to have the Senator from Rhode Island proceed on the amendment that he laid down last night. And subsequent to that, the Senator from Texas, Senator Gramm, will debate his amendment for a period of time. Let me just say, for a couple of minutes before we proceed --I want to pick up on what the Senator from Arizona said--this will close the third week of effort on this bill. Obviously, next week will be critical. We have dealt with three or four of the most contentious issues. We visited the issue of attorneys' fees twice now, notwithstanding the fact that no attorney has been paid the fees that have been thrown around on the floor of the U.S. Senate. In every State, those fees are being renegotiated, they are being subject to arbitration, subject to court decision, but we revisited that twice. We had a spirited and important debate on the subject of liability. In fact, the bill, as brought to the floor, was changed by those who wanted to have a stronger section, and that is the will of the Senate working its way. The look-back provisions were strengthened by the will of the Senate. So the bill has, in some respects, been strengthened from the bill that was brought to the floor. In addition to that, we have had a very long and contentious debate on the subject of how the money would be spent. The Senate, again, spoke by deciding that a significant component of that fund will go back to the American people in the form of tax relief for the marriage penalty. In addition to that, the Senate spoke on the issue of drugs, and a very significant measure was incorporated where, again, a certain proportion of the revenues that will come from the increase of the price of cigarettes is going to go to help fight the war on drugs. I might add, the war on drugs is, in fact, the same as the war on tobacco, because tobacco is an addictive substance that kills people. In this legislation, we are seeking to have the Food and Drug Administration have the capacity to regulate it, and that is in the bill. That is an important measure for America, that for the first time the FDA will be given the capacity to undertake important regulatory efforts with respect to the use of tobacco. All of that is now contained in this legislation. We hear talk that there are a couple of substitutes floating around out there. I ask that those who have a substitute to come forward with them perhaps on Monday or Tuesday, and we will be able to move forward with respect to the substitutes if, in fact, they really do exist. In addition to that, we have a major contentious issue left at some point in time to deal with, which is how to help the farmers. I am certainly particularly sensitive with respect to the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from South Carolina and the Senators from Virginia and others who are concerned about what happens to those who are impacted by a decision that the U.S. Government may take. Traditionally, we have tried to help people who are impacted economically negatively as a consequence of decisions that we make that suddenly come in and change their lives. I have always thought that is appropriate. I fought to do that, whether it was people in the Midwest or the South or the West. An example is the fishermen of New England who were adversely impacted by Government decisions that were made on whether or not they could fish the Georges Bank. When we took the Georges Bank away from them for a period of time, we tried to provide economic assistance. We provided, for the first time, a buyout program for some of the fishing vessels in order to help them deal with that issue. I might add, we are not the first country to do that. Great Britain, Norway and Iceland where they tried to regulate fishing, they also provided significant buyout efforts to do that. So it is appropriate for us to try to, in the context of the legislation, deal with the problems of the tobacco farmers. My hope is, Mr. President, that in the next few days, we can do that. The real test before the Senate is very, very simple. There are some people who seem prepared and satisfied with the notion that we can have the status quo be the victor here; that we can leave the tobacco companies without any Federal settlement, without any global settlement, and that the Senate can somehow walk away from the children of America and have done well by the country. The only people who will benefit by that will be the tobacco companies. Those are the only people who will benefit, and I am not so sure, given the jury verdict in Florida 2 days ago, and given the size of the settlements that have taken place in Minnesota and elsewhere, that they will actually wind up doing that well because, in the end, the lawsuits will proliferate. We may well wind up as we were with the asbestos companies where all of a sudden there is nothing left, and we don't have a tobacco cessation program, we don't have counteradvertising, we don't have any of the restraints that the FDA can impose, but at the same time nor do we have order within the process by which these companies are going to be sued. I think, in the end, nobody benefits from that--nobody benefits. What is very, very clear is that during that period of time, a lot more young children in America will be subjected to the same barrage of opportunities to pick up a cigarette and get hooked and ultimately die prematurely of it as they are today. During the time this debate has taken place, more than 60,000 children have started smoking, and we all know that 20,000 or so of them are going to die prematurely as a result of the habit they now have. We know to a certainty that 86 percent of all the people who smoke in America began as teenagers, and we know to a certainty if you raise the price and simultaneously have concerted efforts to reach those children, you will reduce the number of people who smoke. If you reduce the number of people who smoke, you will give America a tax cut, because every American today is paying a very significant amount of their income to cover the health care costs of a nation that pays for people who are for a long time hooked up to tubes or require oxygen or suffer long-term stays in hospitals as a result of the diseases they get, whether it is cancer of the pancreas, cancer of the throat, cancer of the larynx, kidney problems, heart problems, emphysema--all of these are costly to America. That is the tax on America. And if we want a tax cut, the way to get that tax cut is to pass tobacco legislation. The only benefit of not passing it would be to keep the tobacco companies liberated to pursue the policies of predatory practice which they have pursued that we now know to a certainty over the last years. I hope we are going to vote on this next week. I hope we can have cloture on this next week. I hope the majority leader will join us next week by offering a cloture motion and bringing the Senate together to complete its important task of reducing teenage smoking in this country. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time. I move to table the Sessions-Faircloth amendment. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from North Dakota.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will be brief and this side will be brief. We will yield back some time. I know my colleagues have pressing flight schedules. I yield myself such time as I may use. Let me say to my colleague from Texas, earlier this morning he was on the floor of the U.S. Senate suggesting how outrageous it was for the U.S. Senate to tell a State what it ought to do or how it ought to spend its money. He said at that time, ``If I wanted to do that, I would run for the Texas legislature--I would run for the State legislature.'' I assume this amendment amounts to his announcement of candidacy for the State legislature, because here he is, telling them how they can spend money in State contracts in the State. These are private contracts. Lo and behold, here is the Republican Party that suddenly has decided it can interfere with the private contracting of private sector enterprises. I am astonished by that. Not only that, almost every single fact on which--not fact, every single assertion that they have made today, trying to claim it as a fact, is incorrect. There is no $92,000 mentioned anywhere in this legislation, and no lawyer has been paid $92,000 an hour. In fact, every single one of those cases is subject to arbitration. Take the Florida case. The judge threw it out because it was excessive--threw it out. And they are going to resolve what is an appropriate fee. What the Senator does not say is there are a whole set of criteria they have to use to decide that fee. They have to consider the time and the labor required by plaintiff. They have to show time sheets. They are going to have to come in and prove how much time they worked. They are going to have to show how difficult the question was and the novelty of the question. They have to show they have the requisite skill for those claims or to litigate them. They have to show the amount that was involved in their litigation and the results that they achieved. And they have to show the undesirability of the action. That is not an easy standard. I suggest the notion that arbitration-- which requires both sides to come up with two additional people that they both agree on--is not somehow subject to a test is ridiculous. That is a tough process. All the other arguments we are listening to today are the exact same arguments the Senate voted on previously. There is not one different thing here except that, instead of having Congress be the accounting factor, now they want to make the court the accounting factor. It is ridiculous. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time remains?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Alabama wants to go. But let me just say to my friend from Oklahoma, I am not sure he is aware of it. All the States that have settled, the four States that have settled, not one dime comes out of the Federal Treasury; not one dime comes out of the money that is going to be raised through the tobacco industry in this bill. It is all paid by the industry. They settled. They agreed to pay the attorneys' fees. In fact, not one of the figures that the Senators have yet used in this debate is an accurate or real figure. Not one. Why? Because there is not a State where an attorney has yet been paid. Not one. And the reason they haven't been paid is that in every State it is going to arbitration. It is going to be settled by the courts. It is not going to be settled in the way they are saying. So they are talking about all of these fictitious numbers, the initial contracts. None of the new States that have come to the suits are, in fact, using the level of the early contracts with the lawyers when it was at 25 percent. Do you know what they are using? They are using about 2 or 3 percent now. This is a fictitious debate, one that we have been through before. I will summarize some arguments about it a little bit later. I will reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, just so the legislative record is absolutely clear here, there was, in the underlying bill, a change in section 418 of the Social Security Act which actually transfers money to the child development block grant. What we arrived at was an agreement that there was no intention to change the means testing and/ or distribution with respect to section 418. However, it is the understanding of the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from Massachusetts that as to the money that goes directly to the child care development block grant through the tobacco trust fund, that money may be disbursed according to the terms of the Kerry-Bond amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I ask my friend from Oklahoma if he wanted to proceed. I think we are going to proceed according to the unanimous consent request, which is to go immediately to the Sessions amendment. Is that the understanding of the Senator from Oklahoma?

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my understanding then--and I ask unanimous consent that after my modification we would proceed immediately to the vote on my amendment--subsequent to that, there would be a 45-minute period of debate evenly divided on the Sessions amendment, at which time that would be followed by a motion to table.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the Senator from Georgia, Senator Cleland, in introducing legislation with him to expand the authorized level of the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Georgia on this issue. We must provide and over the last few years have provided strong support to help women business owners meet their greatest potential. I am happy to say this bill does just that. The additional funding that would be authorized in the bill will ensure that the SBA is going to achieve the goal of establishing the Women's Business Center in every single State by the year 1999. It will also be used to expand the existing very successful Women's Business Centers in the currently underserved areas of their States. Just 10 years ago Congress established a demonstration program to help women-owned businesses gain access to capital and assistance, technical assistance, in business development. This program has proven to be a really remarkable success. It has served nearly 50,000 American women, business owners, through 54 sites in 28 States and the District of Columbia. Women-owned businesses have made extraordinary gains over the past decade, and everyone in America is sharing the economic advantage that has resulted from their endeavors. Current calculations by the Small Business Administration indicate that women now own one-third of all U.S. firms--more than 8 million businesses. Women-owned businesses employ one out of every five U.S. workers, a total of 18.5 million employees, and more people than the Fortune 500 companies. Each year, women-owned businesses now contribute more than $2.38 trillion into the national economy. In Massachusetts, where 147,000 women-owned businesses account for over one-third of all our companies, the Center for Women and Business Enterprise has worked to empower women in becoming economically self- sufficient through entrepreneurship. The center provides in-depth courses, workshops, one-on-one counseling, and access to financing for women. Unfortunately, notwithstanding this extraordinary record of women- owned business, credit has always been something that has been more difficult for women because of credit standards, and frankly some stereotyping that historically has taken place. Since its inception in 1995, my State's Women's Business Center has served more than 1,000 women business owners, 40 percent of whom are minorities. One hundred cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts are benefiting from the programs and the activities that are available at the center. I will share a couple of real stories of how this has worked and what it has done. Renata Matsson came to the Center for Women and Enterprise in October 1995 after she had developed a medical device to assist people suffering from chronic eye problems. But Renata didn't know how to transform her invention to a product in a small business. After completing an 11-week class which taught her ``the language of business,'' she developed a detailed business plan and applied for a grant from the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research Program through the National Institutes of Health. She was recently awarded a grant of $100,000. Today she is using that grant to commercialize her technology and start her own small business. Another example: 16 years ago, Nancy Engel was a young mother on welfare dreaming of giving her daughter the things that she never had-- a home, financial security, and a college education. Nancy took $30 from her last welfare check and bought spices, which she then repackaged and sold at a flea market. She earned $200 from that investment of her $30 from her check. She then used those proceeds to develop a small business called the Sunny Window. In 1996, she enrolled in the Center for Women and Enterprise's business planning course. Since she completed the course, Sunny Window has grown and now generates $250,000 in annual revenues selling spices, dried flower arrangements and soaps throughout the world. It now employs seven women with what Nancy calls ``part-time mothers' hours.'' Nancy was recently named the U.S. Small Business Administration's first Welfare-to-Work Entrepreneur of the Year for Massachusetts. Soon she will be volunteering for the Center for Women and Enterprise, assisting other women entrepreneurs who are trying to make the very difficult transition from public assistance to running their own small business. These are just two of a myriad of stories, wonderful stories, of success as a result of our efforts at the Federal level to assist women-owned businesses. These success stories are, however, juxtaposed to the reality that far too many women still face unnecessary obstacles to developing their own businesses, ranging from the lack of access to capital to a lack of access to government contracts, to a lack of access to business education or even to training opportunities, not to mention some of the fundamental resistance that has, unfortunately, existed with respect to women's efforts to try to engage in entrepreneurial activities. We need to expand on the policies and programs that allow women entrepreneurs to grow and to thrive. In turn, it is clear their successes will benefit our country and all of our communities. We know that women entrepreneurs are now breaking records. Women-owned business have a startup rate twice that of male-owned counterparts. Between 1987 and 1992, the number of women-owned businesses increased by 43 percent while business overall grew only 26 percent. Particularly notable, women-owned companies with 100 or more workers increased employment by 158 percent, more than double the rate for all U.S. firms of similar size. These accomplishments illustrate the importance of women-owned businesses to our economy, and they underscore why we in Congress should support their growth and development. Last year, I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997, which doubled the authorization of funding for women business center programs to $8 million for each of the next 3 years. I was extremely pleased that the major provision of that bill, as well as a mandate for the SBA to conduct studies on how women businesses fare in the contracting and finance areas, was included in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 and was enacted into law with President Clinton's signature. The legislation that I join Senator Cleland in introducing today takes the next step in developing the women's business center program by increasing the authorization to $9 million in fiscal year 1999, $10.5 million in the year 2000, and $12 million in 2001. I underscore that that is a remarkably small amount of money that we are seeking to do a large job, a job which obviously is returning extraordinary results to the Nation. This increased funding will ensure that the SBA achieves the goal of establishing at least one women's business center in each State by the end of the year in 1999 and will strengthen and expand the existing centers. I also continue to support the development of the women's on- line center, which is a very useful tool for women businessowners-- especially those located in rural areas--who want to avail themselves of the women's business center technical expertise. The legislation that Senator Cleland and I introduce today is the beginning of a new advancement for women-owned businesses, and I am very proud to be a part of it. I hope that all of our colleagues will join in this important effort. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Cleland and his staff, particularly John Johnson, for the work they have done in the preparation of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am delighted to join the Senator from Georgia, Senator Cleland, in introducing legislation with him to expand the authorized level of the Small Business Administration's Women's Business Centers. I appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Georgia on this issue. We must provide and over the last few years have provided strong support to help women business owners meet their greatest potential. I am happy to say this bill does just that. The additional funding that would be authorized in the bill will ensure that the SBA is going to achieve the goal of establishing the Women's Business Center in every single State by the year 1999. It will also be used to expand the existing very successful Women's Business Centers in the currently underserved areas of their States. Just 10 years ago Congress established a demonstration program to help women-owned businesses gain access to capital and assistance, technical assistance, in business development. This program has proven to be a really remarkable success. It has served nearly 50,000 American women, business owners, through 54 sites in 28 States and the District of Columbia. Women-owned businesses have made extraordinary gains over the past decade, and everyone in America is sharing the economic advantage that has resulted from their endeavors. Current calculations by the Small Business Administration indicate that women now own one-third of all U.S. firms--more than 8 million businesses. Women-owned businesses employ one out of every five U.S. workers, a total of 18.5 million employees, and more people than the Fortune 500 companies. Each year, women-owned businesses now contribute more than $2.38 trillion into the national economy. In Massachusetts, where 147,000 women-owned businesses account for over one-third of all our companies, the Center for Women and Business Enterprise has worked to empower women in becoming economically self- sufficient through entrepreneurship. The center provides in-depth courses, workshops, one-on-one counseling, and access to financing for women. Unfortunately, notwithstanding this extraordinary record of women- owned business, credit has always been something that has been more difficult for women because of credit standards, and frankly some stereotyping that historically has taken place. Since its inception in 1995, my State's Women's Business Center has served more than 1,000 women business owners, 40 percent of whom are minorities. One hundred cities and towns in eastern Massachusetts are benefiting from the programs and the activities that are available at the center. I will share a couple of real stories of how this has worked and what it has done. Renata Matsson came to the Center for Women and Enterprise in October 1995 after she had developed a medical device to assist people suffering from chronic eye problems. But Renata didn't know how to transform her invention to a product in a small business. After completing an 11-week class which taught her ``the language of business,'' she developed a detailed business plan and applied for a grant from the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research Program through the National Institutes of Health. She was recently awarded a grant of $100,000. Today she is using that grant to commercialize her technology and start her own small business. Another example: 16 years ago, Nancy Engel was a young mother on welfare dreaming of giving her daughter the things that she never had-- a home, financial security, and a college education. Nancy took $30 from her last welfare check and bought spices, which she then repackaged and sold at a flea market. She earned $200 from that investment of her $30 from her check. She then used those proceeds to develop a small business called the Sunny Window. In 1996, she enrolled in the Center for Women and Enterprise's business planning course. Since she completed the course, Sunny Window has grown and now generates $250,000 in annual revenues selling spices, dried flower arrangements and soaps throughout the world. It now employs seven women with what Nancy calls ``part-time mothers' hours.'' Nancy was recently named the U.S. Small Business Administration's first Welfare-to-Work Entrepreneur of the Year for Massachusetts. Soon she will be volunteering for the Center for Women and Enterprise, assisting other women entrepreneurs who are trying to make the very difficult transition from public assistance to running their own small business. These are just two of a myriad of stories, wonderful stories, of success as a result of our efforts at the Federal level to assist women-owned businesses. These success stories are, however, juxtaposed to the reality that far too many women still face unnecessary obstacles to developing their own businesses, ranging from the lack of access to capital to a lack of access to government contracts, to a lack of access to business education or even to training opportunities, not to mention some of the fundamental resistance that has, unfortunately, existed with respect to women's efforts to try to engage in entrepreneurial activities. We need to expand on the policies and programs that allow women entrepreneurs to grow and to thrive. In turn, it is clear their successes will benefit our country and all of our communities. We know that women entrepreneurs are now breaking records. Women-owned business have a startup rate twice that of male-owned counterparts. Between 1987 and 1992, the number of women-owned businesses increased by 43 percent while business overall grew only 26 percent. Particularly notable, women-owned companies with 100 or more workers increased employment by 158 percent, more than double the rate for all U.S. firms of similar size. These accomplishments illustrate the importance of women-owned businesses to our economy, and they underscore why we in Congress should support their growth and development. Last year, I was proud to be an original cosponsor of the Women's Business Centers Act of 1997, which doubled the authorization of funding for women business center programs to $8 million for each of the next 3 years. I was extremely pleased that the major provision of that bill, as well as a mandate for the SBA to conduct studies on how women businesses fare in the contracting and finance areas, was included in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 1997 and was enacted into law with President Clinton's signature. The legislation that I join Senator Cleland in introducing today takes the next step in developing the women's business center program by increasing the authorization to $9 million in fiscal year 1999, $10.5 million in the year 2000, and $12 million in 2001. I underscore that that is a remarkably small amount of money that we are seeking to do a large job, a job which obviously is returning extraordinary results to the Nation. This increased funding will ensure that the SBA achieves the goal of establishing at least one women's business center in each State by the end of the year in 1999 and will strengthen and expand the existing centers. I also continue to support the development of the women's on- line center, which is a very useful tool for women businessowners-- especially those located in rural areas--who want to avail themselves of the women's business center technical expertise. The legislation that Senator Cleland and I introduce today is the beginning of a new advancement for women-owned businesses, and I am very proud to be a part of it. I hope that all of our colleagues will join in this important effort. I would like to take the opportunity to thank Senator Cleland and his staff, particularly John Johnson, for the work they have done in the preparation of this legislation.