John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate, to conduct an executive business meeting on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 2:30 p.m., in room SH-216 of the Hart Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 2 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 10 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 3:15 p.m.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, January 21, 2009, at 2 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``Where Were the Watchdogs? The Financial Crisis and the Breakdown of Financial Governance.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is hard to imagine, at least for me it is hard to imagine, the Senate without Joe Biden--at least as a Senator on the floor, in the thick of the fray. That is not just because he came here as a kid, so to speak, not just because he chaired some of this institution's most important committees, but it is because of this particular moment that we find ourselves in, in the country. This is the kind of moment Joe Biden loves to be in the middle of, legislating. Obviously, we take a very special pride in knowing that one of our own is about to become Vice President. While this makes him President of the Senate, for once I actually wish Dick Cheney was right and that Joe was still a part of the legislative branch. But, make no mistake, the Senate's loss is President Obama's and the country's gain. Joe will bring a terrific strategic thinking and legislative experience to the challenges we face. This is a special moment in so many ways, and it is an emotional moment. I have known Joe since we were both kids, in terms of this journey, since we first ran for office in 1972. We learned about each other then, reading the press clips of each other's races, hearing stories from mutual friends and joint campaign workers. The conventional wisdom of that year is that Joe couldn't win his race against an incumbent, Hale Boggs, who had been in office and winning elections in Delaware for 6 years. I, on the other hand, was favored to win mine. True to conventional wisdom, it turned out exactly the opposite way. To this day, I like to kid our longtime friend, our New Jersey friend, John Marttila, who was deeply involved in both of our races back then, that if he had just spent a little more time in Lowell, MA, and a little less time in Wilmington, things might have turned out differently. But for Joe and me, both in politics and in life, things have actually turned out pretty well, and I have loved sharing this journey with him. In a lot of ways, Joe Biden is an old-fashioned kind of guy. He lives life and politics by what a lot of people think are the old rules, regrettably: Unfailingly loyal, your word is your bond, you tell the truth, you act on principle not ideology, and you keep faith with family and home, you never forget where your roots are or who you are, and you are consistent and honest in all your endeavors. Joe Biden is all of that and a lot more in many personal ways. He is a patriarch to the core, in the best time-honored understanding of the meaning of that word. He never smiles more broadly or picks up more personal energy than when he is talking about his family. Frankly, to know Joe Biden is also to know a lot of Bidens. Dozens of our colleagues, hundreds over the years, know that if you call Joe Biden with a late-night question, the odds are pretty high you are going to find him on that train, riding Amtrak home to be there with Jill, Beau, Hunter, Ashley, and the grandchildren. There is something pretty great about a Senator who makes sure to stop by his mom's house for ice cream or a kiss good night on his way home. That is exactly what Joe Biden would do with his 92-year-old spitfire mother, Jean Finnegan Biden. It is the lessons of that big, Irish, warm, protective family that Joe brought to the Senate. He is the big brother whose sister Val remembers him as her protector on the playground, the dad whom Beau and Hunter remember urging them to get up when they got knocked down on the soccer field, the boss who calls a staff member when they have a sick parent or who threatens to fire you if you miss your kid's birthday because you are working late for him. This is someone in the Senate who had a reputation for not just talking about family values but living them. As Joe Biden said so movingly this morning: He saw the Senate as an extended family and here he applied the lessons his dad taught him in Scranton, that everything comes down to dignity and respect. He has always respected the institution, and he always respected the dignity and individuality of every single one of his colleagues. One of the great stories that Joe told today, which has always spoken to me personally, is one that tells a lot about ushering in a new era of bipartisanship. When Joe first arrived in the Senate, he complained to the majority leader, Mike Mansfield, about a speech that another new Senator named Jesse Helms had made. Mansfield told him: Joe, understand one thing. Everyone is sent here for a reason; because there is something in them that their folks like. Don't question their motive. Every one of us who has worked with Joe Biden knows how much he took this lesson to heart and how much we gain by applying it today. His example is clear. If you treat people decently, look for the best in them, you can sit down and work through divisive issues; not just score more political points but actually get something done. Joe likes to talk about his first impression of Jesse Helms, but he is often too modest to talk about what happened later. Some people might have been surprised that Joe Biden, Jesse Helms, and I teamed up in the fight against global HIV/AIDS. Some never would have believed that together we could bring about what is today the largest public health expenditure or effort by any single country in world history. That is what happens when Joe Biden takes to heart the message of a wise warhorse such as Mike Mansfield, looks past the stereotypes, past the party labels, and throws out all the ideological language to find the common ground. Nowhere did I see that more than on the issue of crime. Coming from the vantage point of being a prosecutor in the 1970s, who then became a Senator in the 1980s, I can tell you there was no more divisive, ugly wedge and emotionally charged issue than crime until Joe Biden and the 1994 crime bill. Joe put an end to the ``Willie Hortonizing'' of this issue. We worked closely together and put more cops on the streets of America. I remember Joe's passion and tenacity on that bill. It was a huge, landmark piece of legislation, complicated, divisive-- but not so because of Joe's enormous skill that shepherded it through the ideological minefields that otherwise might have been impossible. Joe was simply not going to accept defeat. He made dozens of trips to the White House, had dozens of meetings with congressional leadership, all to find a way to create common ground and ultimately pass a bill that resulted in the lowest crime rates in a generation. Every step of the way he sought out friends, he crossed the aisle, he worked the process and built allies and invited them to share not just in the work but also to share in the credit, which is, in the end, the best way to get things done here. That is leadership in the Senate and that is exactly how we make progress. He also brought great skill to his stewardship in the Foreign Relations Committee. I served on that committee for the full 25 years I have been here, all of it with Joe Biden and some of it with Joe Biden as our chair. Let me give an example. When Russian tanks rolled into Georgia, respecting Georgia's sovereignty became a sound bite for a lot of people, but for Joe Biden it was a moment to pick up a phone, call up an old friend, someone he had met as a young Parliamentarian, who was then in his twenties. So Joe Biden got on a plane, took that flight all night, and sat on a hilltop in Georgia with his old friend, Mikheil Saakashvili, and together they talked to not just about the security of Georgia but the security of a man who was then in very real danger, a man Joe Biden believed was willing to die for democracy. This is just one small example of the emotional intelligence and personal touch that had been the calling cards of Joe's career in public life for decades. As we all know, Joe is blessed with a big, all-encompassing Irish sense of humor, an ability to have fun amidst all the rest of the tensions and stress and chaos. We still joke about the trip we took with Chuck Hagel to a forward operating base in Kunar Province in Afghanistan in the middle of winter and our helicopter wound up getting caught in a blizzard. We had just received a briefing that, where the modern road system ends, the Taliban begins. Lo and behold, the next thing we knew, we had a forced landing high on a mountaintop on a dirt road with nothing around us. We sat around swapping stories for a while and came up with a few contingency plans in case the Taliban attacked. First, we thought--use the hot air of three talkative Senators and the helicopter will rise. Then we figured failing that we will talk the Taliban to death. Ultimately, we figured we would let Joe Biden lead a snowball charge and that would be the end of the deal. But our superb military protectors, efficient as always, soon had us out of there, safe and rescued, and we have had a good time laughing about it ever since. Later, when I told him my plan to have him lead the brigade, Joe, reliving his Blue Hen college football glory days, flexed his right arm and said in that inimitable Biden way: The Taliban? They are not worth my rocket arm. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Joe applied a no- holds-barred, unvarnished truth-telling to many politically sensitive issues. In the middle of his own Presidential campaign, he didn't hesitate to ask whether our counterterrorism policy had turned a deadly serious but manageable threat, a small number of radical groups that hate America, into a 10-foot-tall existential monster that dictates nearly every move we make. It was not a poll-tested or popular question, but it was a sign of leadership and a mark of vision that will serve America well when he takes the oath as Vice President of the United States. Let me share one last story involving my senior Senator, Ted Kennedy, who has been an incredible mentor, both to me and to Joe, since we both got into this business. Years ago, when Ted Kennedy joined the Armed Services Committee, Senate rules dictated that Ted had to step down from the Judiciary Committee. That would have made Joe the chairman. So Joe had all the interest in the world for that to happen. But, instead--and I suppose I should say what Senator in their early forties, presented with the choice, wouldn't have loved to have had the responsibility of the Judiciary Committee. But Joe Biden went to the caucus and he gave them an ultimatum. He said point blank: This is ridiculous. I wouldn't serve as a chairman unless I have Teddy Kennedy on my side on this committee. Make no mistake, Ted Kennedy moved to Armed Services, but he stayed on the Judiciary Committee. Together, they fought some of the greatest confirmation battles in the history of the Supreme Court. No one can imagine the Judiciary Committee without Ted Kennedy's decades of focus and fire. But the Senate should know it would not have been possible if it had not been for Joe Biden's youthful challenge to the leadership to get him to be able to stay there. Joe is one of the people in the Senate whom I have had the privilege of enjoying now for a quarter of a century and one of the people, obviously, I have enjoyed serving with the most. We have been through a lot. We have shared a lot, good and bad, ups and downs. What is exciting is, frankly, we still have a lot more to come. While Joe is making that short ride up to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, I know there is one thing that is not going to change. We are always going to be able to count on him to be the same Joe Biden, and I know we can take that to the bank. When Joe works with us in these next months--and he will work with us intensely--and when he says to you: I give you my word as a Biden that this is going to happen, we can take that to the bank and know it will happen. We are very proud of our colleague, Senator Biden. We wish him well and Godspeed. We look forward to seeing him as the presiding official of this body, but, more importantly, we look forward to working with him on the enormous challenges this country faces.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009. Since 1975, the earned income tax credit, EITC, has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. Census data and the events of Hurricane Katrina reiterated the fact that there is a group of Americans that are falling behind. The poverty rate for 2007 was 12.5 percent and this is basically the same as the rate for 2006. In 2007, there were 37.3 million living in poverty. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 8 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and simplifying the credit. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. Under current law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. This legislation would create a new credit amount based on three or more children. One of the purposes of the EITC is to lift families above the poverty level. Because the EITC adjustment for family size is limited to two children, over time large families will not be kept above the poverty threshold. Under current law, the maximum EITC for an individual with two or more children is $5,028 and under this legislation, the amount would increase to $5,656 for an individual with three or more children. Increasing the credit amount would make more families eligible for the EITC. Currently, an individual with three children and income at and above $40,295 would not benefit from the credit. Under this legislation, an individual with children and income under $43,276 would benefit from the EITC. Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. For 2008, the EITC will fully offset the employee share of payroll taxes only for childless workers earning less than $5,720. A typical single childless adult will begin to owe Federal income taxes in addition to payroll taxes when his or her income is only $10,655, which is below the poverty line. The decline in the labor force of single men has been troubling. Boosting the EITC for childless workers could be part of solution for increasing work among this group. Increasing the EITC for families has increased labor rates for single mothers and hopefully, it can do the same for this group. This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayers and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $457 to $913. The doubling of the phase-out results in taxpayers in the same income range being eligible for the credit. In addition, the legislation would increase the credit phase-out income level from $7,470 to $13,800 for 2009 and $14,500 for 2010. Under current law, workers under age 25 are ineligible for the childless workers EITC. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 would change the age to 21. This age change will provide an incentive for labor for less-educated younger adults. Fourth, the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the EITC by modifying the abandoned spouse rule, clarifying the qualifying child rules, and repealing the disqualified investment test. Current rules require parents to file a joint tax return to claim the EITC. This can create difficulty for separated parents. If parents are separated and not yet divorced, complex rules govern whether the custodial parent may claim the EITC if a separate return is filed. The custodial parent must be able to claim head-of-household filing status. This test requires that a parent must pay more than half of household expenses from her own earnings, rather than from child support payments or program benefits. Under this legislation, the requirements by permitting a separated parent who lives with for more than six months of the year and also lives apart from his/her spouse for at least the final six months of the year to claim the EITC. Under current law, two adults who live in the same household with a child may each qualify to claim the child for the EITC, but only one taxpayer may claim the child and the other taxpayer is not eligible to claim the childless worker EITC. Under this legislation, filers who are eligible to claim a child for the EITC but do not do so are eligible to claim the smaller EITC for workers not raising a child. For example, a mother and aunt living in the same house who are both qualified to claim the child would be able to receive the EITC. The one who claims the child would get the larger amount and the other would be eligible for the smaller childless worker credit. Under current law, low-income filers are ineligible for the EITC if they have investment income such as interest, dividends, capital gains, rent or royalties that exceeds $3,950 a year. Very few EITC claimants have investment income above this level. This income test creates a ``cliff'' because those workers with investment income of $2,951 would be unable to claim any EITC. This provision discourages savings among low- and moderate-income families. Under this legislation, the investment income test would be repealed. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. I urge my colleagues to support an expansion of the EITC.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Rockefeller and I are introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009. Since 1975, the earned income tax credit, EITC, has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. Census data and the events of Hurricane Katrina reiterated the fact that there is a group of Americans that are falling behind. The poverty rate for 2007 was 12.5 percent and this is basically the same as the rate for 2006. In 2007, there were 37.3 million living in poverty. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 8 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and simplifying the credit. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. Under current law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. This legislation would create a new credit amount based on three or more children. One of the purposes of the EITC is to lift families above the poverty level. Because the EITC adjustment for family size is limited to two children, over time large families will not be kept above the poverty threshold. Under current law, the maximum EITC for an individual with two or more children is $5,028 and under this legislation, the amount would increase to $5,656 for an individual with three or more children. Increasing the credit amount would make more families eligible for the EITC. Currently, an individual with three children and income at and above $40,295 would not benefit from the credit. Under this legislation, an individual with children and income under $43,276 would benefit from the EITC. Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. For 2008, the EITC will fully offset the employee share of payroll taxes only for childless workers earning less than $5,720. A typical single childless adult will begin to owe Federal income taxes in addition to payroll taxes when his or her income is only $10,655, which is below the poverty line. The decline in the labor force of single men has been troubling. Boosting the EITC for childless workers could be part of solution for increasing work among this group. Increasing the EITC for families has increased labor rates for single mothers and hopefully, it can do the same for this group. This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayers and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $457 to $913. The doubling of the phase-out results in taxpayers in the same income range being eligible for the credit. In addition, the legislation would increase the credit phase-out income level from $7,470 to $13,800 for 2009 and $14,500 for 2010. Under current law, workers under age 25 are ineligible for the childless workers EITC. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 would change the age to 21. This age change will provide an incentive for labor for less-educated younger adults. Fourth, the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the EITC by modifying the abandoned spouse rule, clarifying the qualifying child rules, and repealing the disqualified investment test. Current rules require parents to file a joint tax return to claim the EITC. This can create difficulty for separated parents. If parents are separated and not yet divorced, complex rules govern whether the custodial parent may claim the EITC if a separate return is filed. The custodial parent must be able to claim head-of-household filing status. This test requires that a parent must pay more than half of household expenses from her own earnings, rather than from child support payments or program benefits. Under this legislation, the requirements by permitting a separated parent who lives with for more than six months of the year and also lives apart from his/her spouse for at least the final six months of the year to claim the EITC. Under current law, two adults who live in the same household with a child may each qualify to claim the child for the EITC, but only one taxpayer may claim the child and the other taxpayer is not eligible to claim the childless worker EITC. Under this legislation, filers who are eligible to claim a child for the EITC but do not do so are eligible to claim the smaller EITC for workers not raising a child. For example, a mother and aunt living in the same house who are both qualified to claim the child would be able to receive the EITC. The one who claims the child would get the larger amount and the other would be eligible for the smaller childless worker credit. Under current law, low-income filers are ineligible for the EITC if they have investment income such as interest, dividends, capital gains, rent or royalties that exceeds $3,950 a year. Very few EITC claimants have investment income above this level. This income test creates a ``cliff'' because those workers with investment income of $2,951 would be unable to claim any EITC. This provision discourages savings among low- and moderate-income families. Under this legislation, the investment income test would be repealed. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. I urge my colleagues to support an expansion of the EITC.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, our economy is in the midst of the worst economic downturn since since the Great Depression. We all realize that small businesses are the backbone of our economy. During these difficult times, many small businesses are having trouble accessing credit which leads to a decline in job creation and innovation. Many of our most successful corporations started as small businesses, including AOL, Apple Computer, Compac Computer, Datastream, Evergreen Solar, Intel Corporations, and Sun Microsystems. As you can see from this partial list, many of these companies played an integral role in making the Internet a reality. Today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 to encourage private investment in small businesses by making changes to the existing partial exclusion for gain from certain small business stock. Investing in small businesses is essential to turning around the economy. Not only will investment in small business spur job creation. it will lead to new technological breakthroughs. We are at an integral juncture in developing technology to address global climate change. I believe that small business will repeat the role it played at the vanguard of the computer revolution--by leading the Nation in developing the technologies to substantially reduce carbon emissions. Small businesses already are at the forefront of these industries, and we need to do everything we can to encourage investment in small businesses. Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to enact legislation to provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals from the sale of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years. This provision would provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals from the sale of certain small business stock that is held for 5 years. Since the enactment of this provision, the capital gains rate has been lowered twice without any changes to the exclusion. Due to the lower capital rates, this provision no longer provides a strong incentive for investment in small businesses. The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 makes several changes to the existing provision. This legislation increases the exclusion amount from 50 percent to 100 percent and decreases the holding period from 5 to 4 years. This bill would allow corporations to benefit from the provision as long as they own less than 25 percent of the small business corporation stock. Currently, the exclusion is treated as a preference item for calculating the alternative minimum tax, AMT. The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 would repeal the exclusion as an AMT preference item. The Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 will provide an effective tax rate of 0 percent for the gain from the sale of certain small businesses. This lower capital gains rate will encourage investment in small businesses. In addition, the changes made by the Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 will make more taxpayers eligible for this provision. I urge my colleagues to support the Invest in Small Business Act of 2009 which strengthens an existing tax incentive to provide an appropriate incentive to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my home State of Massachusetts is setting an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America. In Massachusetts the cost of health care is a major obstacle to the overall goal of universal coverage. The problem of the uninsured can't be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system requires that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the burden to help alleviate costs. Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for everyone. One percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare costs, and 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To make healthcare more affordable, we must find a better way to share the immense burden of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured. Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to cover their workers is an aversion to risk. Patients who are catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these costs. Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to offer comprehensive health insurance benefits to all full time employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits that are proven to make care affordable. This will result in lower costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the access to health care for everyone. That is why I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act, to make the federal government a partner in helping businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases. Specifically, this legislation is designed to assist those catastrophic cases that cost more than $50,000 in a single year. Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us will go down, by up to approximately 10 percent under this plan. This plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower health care costs and improve coverage. I believe that we must act now to address the health care crisis in America, taking steps that create real change and address both access to care and the cost of care. There is a growing bipartisan consensus that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the catastrophically ill. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our nation's health care crisis, a commonsense partnership between employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate goal: meaningful health care coverage for every single American. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, is allowed the opportunity to fulfill its promise to the low-income children of this country. For over 11 years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and affordable health insurance coverage that each and every American child deserves. Yet there is much work to be done to improve this program, and the reauthorization of SCHIP gives us the opportunity to expand these successful programs to many of the nine million uninsured children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled. While expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our Nation's children are quality services that are available when needed. Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health coverage, that is too often not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with Senator Snowe, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP. This was passed as part of the SCHIP reauthorization last year, but unfortunately the bill was vetoed by President Bush. I am encouraged by the passage of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in October 2008. It is now time to extend the same parity in mental health coverage to our children that we give to adults. Mental illness is a critical problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are startling. Mental disorders affect about one in five American children and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances that severely impact their functioning. Low-income children, those the SCHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental health problems. Yet the sad reality is that an estimated \2/3\ of all young people struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they need. We are failing our children when we do not provide appropriate treatment of mental health disorders. The consequences of this failure could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, untreated mental illness may increase a child's risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. Finally, children with mental disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide. Unfortunately, many states' SCHIP programs are not providing the type of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our physicians to make the best judgments for our kids. The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical services. This bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current law that authorizes states to lower the amount of mental health coverage they provide to children to just 75 percent of the coverage provided in other health care plans used by states. Many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Health care. America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of the SCHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introduce legislation to exempt private activity bond interest from the alternative minimum tax, AMT. My colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Richard Neal has introduced similar legislation. Under current law, interest paid on private activity bonds is subject to the alternative minimum tax. This results in the bonds not being very marketable in these difficult economic times. Making private activity bonds no longer subject to the AMT would help with the issuance of bonds. This legislation would assist in needed relief to State and local governments across the Nation. It would provide more buyers to the market, resulting in interest savings for issuers, and ultimately taxpayers. Subjecting private activity bond interest to the AMT could cost an issuer 25 to 30 more basis points when issuing an AMT bond compared to a non-AMT bond. However, the recent freezing of the municipal credit market has led the difference to rise as much as 100 basis points. This results in increased costs for various infrastructure projects including airports, docks and other transportation-related facilities; water, sewer and other utility facilities; and solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Last Congress, I worked on a provision to exempt the interest from private activity housing bonds from the AMT and this provision was included in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing builds on this provision by exempting interest from all private activity bonds from the AMT. I believe this legislation will help spur the economy and create jobs. This legislation will provide better funding options for essential infrastructure projects and create jobs across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families. According to a recent College Board report tuition is rising at both public and private institutions. On average, the tuition at a private college this year is $25,143, up 5.9 percent from last year, and the tuition at a public college $6,585, up 6.4 percent from last year. Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around Massachusetts, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible. In 1997, the Congress implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE and the Lifetime Learning credits. These tax credits have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is more than $3,000 the average annual public 4-year college tuition more than three times the average annual tuition of a 2-year community college. About 56 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $9,000. In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE credit applies only to the first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts at a Finance Committee hearing held during the 109th Congress. My legislation creates a new credit, the College Opportunity Tax Credit, COTC, that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous. The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $2,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit for the next $4,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $4,000 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses. Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC. These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses. This legislation is only for taxable years beginning in 2009 and 2010 in order to make colleges affordable during these difficult financial times. It will also give the Congress additional time to work on a permanent solution to help with the rising cost of a college education. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are reintroducing the MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009, Modernize Our Bookkeeping in the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2009. Last Congress, 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation which would update the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices. During the past 20 years, the use of cell phone and mobile communication devices has skyrocketed. Cell phones are no longer viewed as an executive perk or a luxury item. They no longer resemble suitcases or are hardwired to the floor of an automobile. Cell phone and mobile communication devices are now part of daily business practices at all levels. In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the definition of listed property under section 280F(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Treating cell phones as listed property requires substantial documentation in order for cell phones to benefit from accelerated depreciation and not be treated as taxable income to the employee. This documentation is required to substantiate that the cell phone is used for business purposes more than 50 percent of the time. Generally, listed property is property that inherently lends itself to personal use, such as automobiles. Back in 1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology worthy of detailed log sheets. At that time, it was difficult to envision cell phones that could be placed in a pocket or handbag. Congress was skeptical about the daily business use of cell phones. Technological advances have revolutionized the cell phone and mobile communication device industries. Twenty years ago, no one could have imagined the role BlackBerries play in our day-to-day communications. Cell phones and mobile communication devices are now widespread throughout all types of businesses. Employers provide their employees with these devices to enable them to remain connected 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The cost of the devices has been reduced and most providers offer unlimited airtime for one monthly rate. Recently, the Internal Revenue Service reminded field examiners of the substantiation rules for cell phones as listed property. The current rule requires employers to maintain expensive and detailed logs, and employers caught without cell phone logs could face tax penalties. The MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009 updates the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices by repealing the requirement that employers maintain detailed logs. The tax code should keep pace with technological advances. There is no longer a reason that cell phones and mobile communication devices should be treated differently than office phones or computers. Last, Congress 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense change.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my home State of Massachusetts is setting an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America. In Massachusetts the cost of health care is a major obstacle to the overall goal of universal coverage. The problem of the uninsured can't be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system requires that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the burden to help alleviate costs. Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for everyone. One percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare costs, and 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To make healthcare more affordable, we must find a better way to share the immense burden of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured. Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to cover their workers is an aversion to risk. Patients who are catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these costs. Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to offer comprehensive health insurance benefits to all full time employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits that are proven to make care affordable. This will result in lower costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the access to health care for everyone. That is why I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act, to make the federal government a partner in helping businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases. Specifically, this legislation is designed to assist those catastrophic cases that cost more than $50,000 in a single year. Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us will go down, by up to approximately 10 percent under this plan. This plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower health care costs and improve coverage. I believe that we must act now to address the health care crisis in America, taking steps that create real change and address both access to care and the cost of care. There is a growing bipartisan consensus that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the catastrophically ill. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our nation's health care crisis, a commonsense partnership between employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate goal: meaningful health care coverage for every single American. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introduce legislation to exempt private activity bond interest from the alternative minimum tax, AMT. My colleague from Massachusetts, Representative Richard Neal has introduced similar legislation. Under current law, interest paid on private activity bonds is subject to the alternative minimum tax. This results in the bonds not being very marketable in these difficult economic times. Making private activity bonds no longer subject to the AMT would help with the issuance of bonds. This legislation would assist in needed relief to State and local governments across the Nation. It would provide more buyers to the market, resulting in interest savings for issuers, and ultimately taxpayers. Subjecting private activity bond interest to the AMT could cost an issuer 25 to 30 more basis points when issuing an AMT bond compared to a non-AMT bond. However, the recent freezing of the municipal credit market has led the difference to rise as much as 100 basis points. This results in increased costs for various infrastructure projects including airports, docks and other transportation-related facilities; water, sewer and other utility facilities; and solid and hazardous waste disposal facilities. Last Congress, I worked on a provision to exempt the interest from private activity housing bonds from the AMT and this provision was included in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The legislation Senator Snowe and I are introducing builds on this provision by exempting interest from all private activity bonds from the AMT. I believe this legislation will help spur the economy and create jobs. This legislation will provide better funding options for essential infrastructure projects and create jobs across the country. I look forward to working with my colleagues on this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families. According to a recent College Board report tuition is rising at both public and private institutions. On average, the tuition at a private college this year is $25,143, up 5.9 percent from last year, and the tuition at a public college $6,585, up 6.4 percent from last year. Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around Massachusetts, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible. In 1997, the Congress implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE and the Lifetime Learning credits. These tax credits have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is more than $3,000 the average annual public 4-year college tuition more than three times the average annual tuition of a 2-year community college. About 56 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $9,000. In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of 4 years of college. Currently the HOPE credit applies only to the first 2 years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts at a Finance Committee hearing held during the 109th Congress. My legislation creates a new credit, the College Opportunity Tax Credit, COTC, that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous. The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $2,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit for the next $4,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $4,000 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses. Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC. These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses. This legislation is only for taxable years beginning in 2009 and 2010 in order to make colleges affordable during these difficult financial times. It will also give the Congress additional time to work on a permanent solution to help with the rising cost of a college education. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2009 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are reintroducing the MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009, Modernize Our Bookkeeping in the Law for Employee's Cell Phone Act of 2009. Last Congress, 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation which would update the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices. During the past 20 years, the use of cell phone and mobile communication devices has skyrocketed. Cell phones are no longer viewed as an executive perk or a luxury item. They no longer resemble suitcases or are hardwired to the floor of an automobile. Cell phone and mobile communication devices are now part of daily business practices at all levels. In 1989, Congress passed a law which added cell phones to the definition of listed property under section 280F(d)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Treating cell phones as listed property requires substantial documentation in order for cell phones to benefit from accelerated depreciation and not be treated as taxable income to the employee. This documentation is required to substantiate that the cell phone is used for business purposes more than 50 percent of the time. Generally, listed property is property that inherently lends itself to personal use, such as automobiles. Back in 1989, cell phone technology was an expensive technology worthy of detailed log sheets. At that time, it was difficult to envision cell phones that could be placed in a pocket or handbag. Congress was skeptical about the daily business use of cell phones. Technological advances have revolutionized the cell phone and mobile communication device industries. Twenty years ago, no one could have imagined the role BlackBerries play in our day-to-day communications. Cell phones and mobile communication devices are now widespread throughout all types of businesses. Employers provide their employees with these devices to enable them to remain connected 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The cost of the devices has been reduced and most providers offer unlimited airtime for one monthly rate. Recently, the Internal Revenue Service reminded field examiners of the substantiation rules for cell phones as listed property. The current rule requires employers to maintain expensive and detailed logs, and employers caught without cell phone logs could face tax penalties. The MOBILE Cell Phone Act of 2009 updates the tax treatment of cell phones and mobile communication devices by repealing the requirement that employers maintain detailed logs. The tax code should keep pace with technological advances. There is no longer a reason that cell phones and mobile communication devices should be treated differently than office phones or computers. Last, Congress 60 Senators cosponsored this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense change.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, is allowed the opportunity to fulfill its promise to the low-income children of this country. For over 11 years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and affordable health insurance coverage that each and every American child deserves. Yet there is much work to be done to improve this program, and the reauthorization of SCHIP gives us the opportunity to expand these successful programs to many of the nine million uninsured children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled. While expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our Nation's children are quality services that are available when needed. Unfortunately, when it comes to mental health coverage, that is too often not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with Senator Snowe, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP. This was passed as part of the SCHIP reauthorization last year, but unfortunately the bill was vetoed by President Bush. I am encouraged by the passage of the Paul Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act in October 2008. It is now time to extend the same parity in mental health coverage to our children that we give to adults. Mental illness is a critical problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are startling. Mental disorders affect about one in five American children and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances that severely impact their functioning. Low-income children, those the SCHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental health problems. Yet the sad reality is that an estimated \2/3\ of all young people struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they need. We are failing our children when we do not provide appropriate treatment of mental health disorders. The consequences of this failure could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, untreated mental illness may increase a child's risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system. Finally, children with mental disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide. Unfortunately, many states' SCHIP programs are not providing the type of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our physicians to make the best judgments for our kids. The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical services. This bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current law that authorizes states to lower the amount of mental health coverage they provide to children to just 75 percent of the coverage provided in other health care plans used by states. Many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Health care. America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of the SCHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am extremely disappointed that the Senate was not able to pass legislation to make bridge loan funding available to our country's automotive industry--not because I condone the behavior of these companies in recent years which brought them to the brink but because I believe allowing their failure at a time of great economic uncertainty could deal a serious blow to our national economy. The domestic automotive industry represents almost four percent of our Nation's gross domestic product and ten percent of our industrial production by value. One out of every 10 U.S. jobs is impacted by the U.S. automotive industry. GM, Ford and Chrysler account for roughly 65 percent of U.S. auto production and support millions of jobs across all 50 States. The Center for Automotive Research recently reported that in Massachusetts alone, the automobile industry accounts for more than 28,000 jobs and $256 million in wages. The bridge loans that would have been made available through this legislation would have gone to protect not only the jobs dependent on this industry but the American economy as a whole, which is suffering from a widespread liquidity crisis that extends well beyond the vital automotive sector. I believe this critical moment presents an opportunity for the Federal Government and the automobile manufacturers to transform an industry that has long resisted the changes that are so clearly necessary for their continued global competitiveness. The assistance provided in the bill was conditioned upon a commitment by the industry to use this money wisely to become more efficient market participants. The legislation included important provisions that would help ensure American taxpayers that this assistance is not used as a line of credit simply to continue business as usual. The legislation also included important safeguards to limit executive compensation to ensure that taxpayer funds are not wasted. I was absent for the vote that occurred Thursday evening because--as the incoming Foreign Relations Committee Chairman--I was representing the Senate at ongoing international climate change negotiations being held in Poznan, Poland. But I was prepared to return from Poland at a moment's notice had we reached a bipartisan agreement or were my vote needed to pass cloture and break a logjam. Instead, thanks to obstruction by the minority, the 110th Congress has come to a close, and the automobile industry teeters on the brink of collapse. In the absence of Congressional action, I urge the President to tap the Troubled Assets Relief Program so that American automakers can access sufficient capital to survive in the short-term. I remain hopeful that the 111th Congress will be a Congress of real economic progress and will work to ensure that the American automobile industry remains globally competitive in the long-term.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am necessarily absent for the cloture vote today on the AMT bill which is the vehicle for the auto stabilization legislation. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture on the bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in July, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship passed S. 3362, the SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2008, by a unanimous 19-0 vote. Since then, Senator Snowe, myself, and others have worked diligently to address concerns that have been expressed to us by our colleagues and the administration, and we reached an agreement with the administration on the terms of the bill. Unfortunately, at the last minute, a colleague had objections and we cannot pass the bill. As the title suggests, the purpose of S. 3362 was to reauthorize the Small Business Administration's Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer programs, otherwise known as SBIR and STTR. The bill makes improvements to these programs that will allow them to work better for small businesses, while contributing to our economy, fulfilling the priority research needs of the nation, and expanding and diversifying our military's supply base. Small businesses continue to receive only about 4 percent of Federal research and development dollars despite the fact that they employ nearly 40 percent of America's scientists and engineers, produce more than 14 times more patents than large businesses and universities, and produce patents that are of higher quality and are more than twice as likely to be cited. Unlike large businesses, which tend to focus more on improving existing product lines, and university research, which leans toward education and publications, America's small businesses and entrepreneurs are the ones willing to take on the high-risk, high-reward research that truly drives innovation. The SBIR and STTR programs are two of the very few Federal programs that tap into the scientific and technical community found in America's small businesses. These programs foster government-industry partnerships by making competitive awards to firms with the best scientific proposals in response to the research needs of our agencies and by helping to move technologies from the lab to the marketplace or from the lab to insertion in a government program or system. Since the inception of the SBIR program in 1982, recipients of SBIR and STTR awards have gone on to produce more than 84,000 patents and to generate millions of well-paying jobs across all 50 States. Both programs have garnered high praise from well-respected sources, including from the National Academy of Sciences, which completed its comprehensive assessment of SBIR last year. Governments around the world are increasingly adopting SBIR-type programs to encourage innovation in their countries. Among the technologies pioneered by SBIR-funded small businesses are a machine that uses lasers and computer cameras to sort and inspect bullets at a much finer level than the human eye can manage, the technology that creates the ``invisible'' condensation trail of the B-2 bomber, a therapeutic drug to treat chronic inflammatory disease, and a nerve gas protection system. With regard to the bullet sorting technology, developed by CyberNet Systems, a small, women-owned business located in Ann Arbor, MI, and currently in use in Iraq and Afghanistan, that SBIR technology is estimated to have saved taxpayers more than $300 million. Those are real cost savings and tangible technological improvements and we could have more such technologies if we increased the SBIR and STTR allocations, as the legislation that passed Committee proposed to do. S. 3362 is the result of much deliberation and compromise and reflects a truly bipartisan effort to strengthen and improve the SBIR and STTR programs. I am proud that Senator Snowe, Senator Bond, myself, and others were able to come together to reach agreement on a number of very difficult issues, including on the involvement of firms majority- owned and controlled by multiple venture capital companies in the SBIR program, and that we unanimously passed this legislation out of committee. And as I said at the start of my remarks, I am also proud that we were able to resolve our differences with the administration to craft a bill that would keep these programs going strong. It is truly a shame that one Republican in this Chamber has blocked this bill from passing, and that all of the effort and all of the compromises that went into getting the legislation to this point will be lost. I ask my colleagues to be aware that the SBIR program is temporarily authorized through March 20, 2009, that the STTR program expires on September 30, 2009, and that we should act fast in the new year to extend or comprehensively authorize these programs to help keep our country ahead in technology.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wanted to take this opportunity to share with my colleagues an especially poignant and meaningful column that appeared in the Boston Herald last week by Wayne Woodlief honoring the efforts Senator Edward M. Kennedy has made to enact legislation to provide health care for all Americans--and looking forward to his leadership on this issue. As Senator Kennedy recently said ``It is painfully obvious that our health care system costs Americans too much, costs employers too much, denies too much needed care and leaves out too many Americans.'' He is right. We need to take immediate action next year to reform our health care system. I look forward to working with Senator Kennedy to enact broad reform of our health care system to help every American gain access to high-quality, affordable health care. I ask unanimous consent to have the column to which I referred, printed in the Record.