John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would politely point out to the Senator from Arizona--and I think he knows this full well--that the first amendment that comes up is subject to endless debate. There is no limit. The notion that we have to have 30 hours before we can get to a debate on an amendment--each amendment is subject to endless debate; the bill itself is subject to endless debate. So the concept of coming out here and saying: Oh, we have to have 30 hours--this bill will be debated, every amendment will be debated. But it would serve the Senate's purpose to actually get to an amendment now and then we could spend 30, 40, 48 hours, a week--we all know this is going to take a while--legislating an important bill does take a while here. But this notion that we have to spend 30 hours without any amendment just to talk about the bill when the bill will be exhaustively talked about in the context of any amendment is, frankly, specious.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are in the sixth year of the war in Iraq, and the costs to our troops, our security, and our country rise by the day. With the current course still not working, I have no choice but to vote against amendments 4817 and 4818 to the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2008. It is clear that these measures continue to give President Bush a blank check to continue his chosen policy, despite the constant warnings of military experts who tell us that there is no military solution to Iraq's civil war and that political compromise in Iraq will not occur absent meaningful deadlines for the transition of our mission and the redeployment of U.S. troops. I believe this was an occasion where Congress had the responsibility to force the President to change a policy that is broken. Not to caution, warn, or cajole--not to give a blank check and hope for the best--but to force a change in a policy that is making us weaker, not stronger. Make no mistake--on the core issue of changing our deployment in Iraq, these amendments are deficient, and that is why I must oppose them. However, they contain provisions many of us have supported time and again. Particularly, the first amendment has many important provisions that I support, including mandating dwell time between deployments for our troops, a prohibition on permanent bases in Iraq, and the requirement that any long-term security agreements with Iraq be subject to approval by the Senate. But because the language with respect to Iraq--setting a nonbinding goal of completing the transition of the mission by June of 2009--is not strong enough, I cannot support the amendment. I also oppose the second amendment, which provides billions and billions more in funding for the war without any policy corrections at all. This is tantamount to giving the President another blank check to continue with an Iraq war policy that I strongly believe is making America less safe. There is no requirement to transition the mission and no deadline to leverage political progress. And there is no relief for a military stretched to the breaking point. That approach will not resolve the sectarian divisions that have fed this civil war, it will not bring long-term stability to Iraq, and it will not protect our national security interests around the world. All of us--and I would underscore, all of us--are incredibly grateful for the remarkable sacrifices our troops have made in Iraq. They have done whatever we have asked of them, and they have served brilliantly. The question before us now is whether we have a strategy that is worthy of their sacrifice. We can all agree that there is no purely military solution to the problems in Iraq. All of our military commanders, including General Petraeus, as well as Secretary Gates and Secretary Rice, have told us as much. And when the President announced his escalation to the American public last January, he said the purpose was to create ``breathing room'' for national reconciliation to move forward. Over a year later, it is clear that this escalation did not accomplish its primary goal of fostering sustainable political progress. General Petraeus himself recently said that ``no one'' in the U.S. or Iraqi Governments ``feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation.'' I don't believe that it is too much to ask of Iraqis to make tough compromises when over 4,000 of our troops have given their lives to provide them that opportunity. In fact, I think the only strategy that honors the tremendous sacrifice of our troops is one that pushes the Iraqis to solve their own problems. And by General Petraeus's own account, the current strategy is not accomplishing that. By my count, we are now entering the fifth war in Iraq. The first was against Saddam Hussein and his supposed weapons of mass destruction. Then came the insurgency that Dick Cheney told us nearly 2 years ago was in its last throes. There was the fight against al-Qaida terrorists whom, the administration said, it was better to fight over there than here. There was a Sunni-Shia civil war that exploded after the Samara mosque bombing. As we saw in Basra, there may be a nascent intra-Shia civil war in southern Iraq. And nobody should be surprised if we see a sixth war between Iraqi Kurds and Arabs over Kirkuk. We are also on at least our fifth ``strategy'' for Iraq. First there was ``Shock and Awe,'' which was supposed to begin a peaceful transition to democracy in Iraq. Then there were ``search and destroy'' missions designed to fight the growing insurgency. There was the era of ``As they stand up, we'll stand down,'' focused on transitioning responsibility to Iraqi security forces. That was followed by the ``National Strategy for Victory'' and the introduction of the ``Clear, Hold and Build'' approach. And last year, we had the ``New Way Forward,'' with the troop escalation that was supposed to provide breathing room for the Iraqis to make political progress. What we have never had is a strategy that brought about genuine political reconciliation or that made Iraqis stand up for Iraq or that allowed us to meet our strategic objectives and bring our troops home. What we have never seen is an exit strategy. In fact, at the beginning of the war in 2003, we had about 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Today, there are still about 150,000 U.S. troops on the ground. After more than 5 years, after more than 4,000 U.S. lives lost, after more than $500 billion dollars spent, we are basically right back where we started from--with no end in sight. And we know that after the escalation ends in July the plan is to keep some 140,000 troops in Iraq--slightly more than the levels of early 2007, when the violence was out of control and political reconciliation was non-existent. So it looks like the sixth strategy is basically to repeat what didn't work the first time and hope for a different result. And we keep hearing that approach justified with the twisted logic that because we cannot afford to fail in Iraq, we must continue with a strategy that has failed to achieve our primary goals. We clearly need a new approach that fundamentally changes the dynamic, and I continue to believe that Iraqis will not make the tough political compromises necessary to stabilize the country while they can depend on the security blanket provided by the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. One thing we know is that the costs of continuing down this path are extraordinary. Over $12 billion per month and over 900 soldiers dead since the surge began. And while we are bogged down in Iraq, we continue to neglect the most pressing threats to our nation's security. Let's be clear: The war in Iraq is not making us safer--it is making us less safe. Iran has been empowered in the region and emboldened to defy the international community in pursuit of its nuclear program. Hezbollah and Hamas are stronger than ever. Our military is stretched to the breaking point. Our intelligence agencies have told us Iraq is a ``cause celebre'' for al-Qaida that helps ``to energize the broader Sunni extremist community, raise resources and to recruit and indoctrinate operatives, including for homeland attacks.'' So it is no surprise that terrorist incidents outside Iraq and Afghanistan have risen dramatically since the war began and are now at historic highs. And we know where the real threats lie: Our top national security officials keep warning us that the next attack is likely to come from the Afghanistan-Pakistan border--not Iraq. Meanwhile Afghanistan slides backwards, in part because--as Admiral Mullen has acknowledged--with so many troops tied down in Iraq, we simply don't have the manpower available to give our military commanders the troops they need. Every day we fail to change course we play further into the hands of our enemies. We need a fundamentally new approach to our Nation's security in the region and around the world--and that starts with a new strategy that in Iraq. The events of the last year have shown once again a basic truth: Iraqis will not resolve their differences and stand up for Iraq while they can depend on the security blanket provided by the indefinite presence of large numbers of U.S. troops. As we redeploy, we need to engage diplomatically with Iraq's neighbors in a way that creates a new security structure for the region. And we must responsibly redeploy from Iraq so we can refocus our efforts on fighting al-Qaida around the world--especially on the real front line in the war on terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate has passed legislation which will assist military families. I agree with Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel that this legislation should be called the ``thank you bill.'' As we approach Memorial Day, I am pleased that the House and Senate have passed this important legislation which will help thousands of military families. I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Grassley for the work they have done on this bill. The HEART Act reflects a compromise reached by the Ways and Means and Senate Finance Committees. Last year, Senator Smith and I introduced the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would help those who bravely serve their country and the families that they have left behind. The HEART Act includes several provisions from the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. It also includes additional provisions to help military families and veterans who often struggle financially. The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who serve our country. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. Currently, there are over 160,000 military personnel serving in Iraq. There are approximately 33,000 United States servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are reservists and have been called to active duty, frequently for multiple tours. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up I applaud the businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same. In January 2007, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or are employed by a small business. We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended consequences the call up of reservists is having on small businesses. According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long call ups and redeployments have made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian soldiers. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to small businesses to assist with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees when they are called to active duty. A similar provision is included in the HEART Act. In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military pay subject to federal income tax withholding. In addition, with respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of the employer making the payment, and allows the differential military pay to be treated as compensation. These provisions are included in the HEART Act. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayers to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income tax credit, EITC. Without this provision, some military families would no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is currently not taxable. It also would provide tax relief for the death gratuity payment that is given to families that have lost a loved one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax- preferred saving accounts that help with saving for retirement. Both of these provisions are included in the HEART Act. Recently, Representatives Ellsworth and Emanuel and Senator Obama and I introduced the Fair Share Act of 2008 which ends the practice of U.S. government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. I think that is appropriate that the Fair Share Act is included in the HEART Act. The revenue raised from closing this abusive loophole will help offset the tax relief provided to military families. On March 6, 2008, Farah Stockman of the Boston Globe reported that Kellogg, Brown and Root Inc.--KBR--has avoided payroll taxes by hiring workers through shell companies in the Cayman Islands. The article estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll taxes have been avoided a disturbing, yet not all too surprising discovery. The Fair Share Act of 2008 will end the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act to treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies performing services under contract with the United States government as American employers for the purpose of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their service. These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and their families at home and abroad.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, nearly 3 years after the tragedy of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, we have enacted meaningful reforms in the way the Small Business Administration comes to the aid of disaster victims. The farm bill conference report includes bipartisan legislation which I have been working on since the fall of 2005 with my ranking member, Senator Snowe, and Senators Landrieu and Vitter. Both Louisiana Senators are members of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. We held many hearings in our committee and received testimony regarding the inadequate response of the Small Business Administration to the destructive gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. S. 163, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007, the latest version of the Senate's small business disaster legislation, was included as an amendment to the farm bill late last year. During the last several months, we conferenced with our colleagues in the House to reconcile the differences between our legislation and companion legislation adopted by the House. I am pleased that we were able to come to an agreement. I want to acknowledge the hard work of all the staffs, and the support of Senator Harkin and his Agriculture Committee staff as we conferenced on this bill. I also want to thank SBA Administrator Preston for his support of this legislation back in August when it first passed the Senate, and during the conference negotiations. This package of provisions does not include everything I would have wanted but it is a significant response to the gulf coast hurricanes of 2005. These large-scale disasters taught us lessons and showed us our vulnerabilities in their wake. They also inspired novel ideas as to how to respond which we have incorporated into these reforms. This bill gives the SBA several tools to better and more quickly assist disaster victims. One of the key issues after Hurricane Katrina was getting money to people quickly so they could keep their businesses afloat and start rebuilding their lives. This bill creates two bridge loan programs for the private sector to administer small-dollar, short- term disaster loans to businesses. It allows the SBA, in a catastrophic disaster, to authorize private lenders to make 180-day loans of up to $150,000 at not more then 1 percent over the prime rate to businesses that are otherwise eligible for a disaster loan. In all disasters, private lenders can make loans of up to $25,000 and receive an SBA guaranty within 36 hours for up to 85 percent of the loan amount. Both loans would be rolled into a standard SBA disaster loan once it has been made. These bridge loans will get financial assistance to businesses while they await processing or disbursement of their conventional SBA loan or insurance payments. This bill also creates a program to allow private lenders to make disaster loans after a catastrophic disaster. This will leverage the relationships people already have with their local lenders and ease the burden on the SBA to make a huge volume of loans quickly. These loans will carry the same terms and benefits as conventional SBA disaster loans. All lenders would be eligible to make loans to small businesses, but only lenders who are preferred lenders could make loans to individuals. The bill also provides the SBA with authority to pay a fee to private lenders to process loans during times when the SBA's processing capabilities are overwhelmed in order to prevent application backlogs and ensure timely approval and disbursement of loan proceeds. Tools such as these will dramatically cut the time it takes to process and disburse loans in the event of a future disaster. After a catastrophic disaster, while the disaster area clearly feels the brunt of the damage, businesses throughout the country can be dramatically affected by the incident. This could be because one of their suppliers or buyers is located in the disaster area, because they receive energy from the disaster area, or a myriad of other reasons. This bill authorizes the SBA to make economic injury disaster loans to businesses located outside the geographic area of a catastrophic disaster, if they suffer economic injury as a direct result of the disaster. This bill also updates and increases the maximum amount of an SBA disaster loan from the current level of $1,500,000 to $2,000,000, and raises the maximum amount of unsecured disaster loans from $10,000 to $14,000. It was well past time to raise these caps given the increasing costs of doing business and these provisions give the SBA the flexibility to get people the help that they need. The bill also gives the SBA Administrator the authority to make new disaster loans and refinance existing loans from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita with a 4-year deferment period giving people time to get back on their feet before their payments come due. Finally, the bill improves SBA's coordination with other agencies, its communication with the public, and its preparation for a future disaster. The bill adds several requirements to improve the SBA's coordination with FEMA as they are the two main agencies responsible to respond to a major disaster. The agency will also be required to conduct biennial disaster simulation exercises and create a comprehensive disaster response plan for various disaster scenarios. The SBA will be required to improve its communication with the public when disaster assistance is made available. The bill also creates a new position for high-level disaster planning to oversee the disaster planning and readiness of the agency. I applaud my colleagues for helping pass this important piece of legislation as part of the farm bill. I expect to see immediate dividends as the SBA is better able to assist disaster victims in the short term, and I know that the passage of these provisions will be looked upon as an essential rebuilding tool if we ever have another tragedy on the scale of 9/11 or Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on May 23, 2008, many of the Small Business Administration's programs and authorities will expire. Unfortunately, it has become commonplace for those in the small business community to face an expiration of the programs they depend upon. Since September 30, 2006, we have had to pass four temporary extensions to keep the Small Business Administration authorized. And here we are, yet again, trying to pass a temporary bill to continue these vital small business programs--this time through March 20, 2009. Since Democrats took the majority over a year ago, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship has worked hard to create a good climate for small businesses in this country. To that end, we have had 20 hearings, 6 roundtables, and passed 5 major bills out of committee to address the needs of the small business community, needs which have gone unmet the past 7 years. During that time, we have often encountered obstruction from the administration and Republican congressional leadership. Despite the cooperation of the very supportive ranking member I have in Senator Olympia Snowe, who is cosponsoring this legislation, some on the other side have blocked our legislation and have blocked the appointment of conferees, which leaves us unable to conference with the House and get much-needed legislation signed into law. The Republicans, now in the minority, fear what will happen in a conference. Rather than work through differences and accomplish something, it is easier to block legislation. Who suffers from all this needless obstruction? Small business owners and their employees. Just today, we saw how it is possible to get things done. S. 163, the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act of 2007, was included in the farm bill conference report. This legislation, which was adopted as an amendment to the farm bill, was then negotiated with the House as part of the farm bill conference, allowing us to enact meaningful reforms in the way the Small Business Administration comes to the aid of disaster victims. My hope is that once we have this extender bill in place, the administration and the Republican leadership will realize that five temporary authorizations are five too many and allow our committee to do what it has been attempting to do, which is to do a comprehensive reauthorization of the rest of the small business programs. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to pass this temporary bill and then give us the support we need for a comprehensive reauthorization of small business programs.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am here today to speak in support of the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act of 2007, for which I am a proud cosponsor. While the vast majority of private and public employees enjoy the right to bargain collectively, thousands of our public safety employees across the country are denied this basic American right. If enacted, this bill would provide our public safety workers with the right to negotiate for the level of pay and benefits they deserve. Every day, we rely on the service of these men and women, who risk their lives to provide safety and protection to our communities. Yet many States and local governments deny these workers the right to organize. It is not fair, and it should not be tolerated. Those who oppose providing public safety employees these fundamental rights claim that the legislation will interfere with existing State and local laws that govern collective bargaining. This is simply false. The legislation ensures that existing collective bargaining units and agreements that have already been issued, approved, or ratified at the State or local level would be maintained. Additionally, this legislation prohibits strikes and work slowdowns by public safety officers and labor unions, as well as lockouts by public safety employers, ensuring that the safety of the public will not be compromised as a result of a work stoppage. This legislation enjoys broad bipartisan support. Introduced by Senators Kennedy and Gregg, there are 34 cosponsors, including 11 Republicans. The House version of the bill passed by a vote of 314 to 97, supported by a majority in both parties. It took a national tragedy in the form of the terrorist attacks of 9/ 11 to remind us all of the critical role public safety officers play in our lives. Hundreds gave their lives that day, and hundreds more give their life in service each year, to ensure our safety and to protect us from danger. It is inexcusable that workers so dedicated to keeping America safe should be denied the basic and fundamental right to organize. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and to stop denying our firefighters, our police, and all of our first responders the right to organize.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have the opportunity this year to help a group of Medicare beneficiaries who are currently subject to costly, bureaucratic red tape which is delaying essential, life-saving treatments to some of our most vulnerable citizens. Addressing this problem will increase the quality of life for many patients and ease financial burdens for their medical providers. Between 6,000 and 10,000 Medicare beneficiaries have primary immunodeficiency diseases, PIDD, and require intravenous immunoglobulin, IVIG treatment to maintain a healthy immune system. Primary Immunodeficiency Diseases are disorders in which part of the body's immune system is missing or does not function properly. These disorders are caused by intrinsic or genetic defects in the immune system. Untreated primary immune deficiencies result in frequent life- threatening infections and debilitating illnesses. Even illnesses such as the common cold or the flu, while unpleasant for most of us, can be deadly for someone with PIDD. Because of advances in our medical understanding and treatment of primary immune deficiency diseases, individuals who in the past would not have survived childhood are now able to live nearly normal lives. While there is still no cure for PIDD, there are effective treatments available. Nearly 70 percent of primary immune deficient patients use intravenous immunoglobulin to maintain their health. Immunoglobulin is a naturally occurring collection of highly specialized proteins, known as antibodies, which strengthen the body's immune response. It is derived from human plasma donations and is administered through an IV to the patient every three to four weeks. Currently, Medicare beneficiaries needing IVIG treatments are experiencing access problems--an unintended result of the way Medicare has determined the payment for IVIG. The current IVIG access and care issue began in January 2005 as a result of the Medicare Modernization Act under Part B, which changed the way physicians and hospital outpatient departments were paid under Medicare. The law reduced IVIG reimbursement rates such that most physicians in outpatient settings could no longer afford to treat Medicare patients requiring IVIG. In addition, access to home based infusion therapy is limited since Medicare currently pays only for the cost of IVIG, and not nursing services and supplies required for infusion. As a result, patients are experiencing delays in receiving this life saving treatment and are being shifted to more expensive care settings such as inpatient hospitals. In addition to incurring extra expenses, hospital-based care results in patients being in close proximity to countless microorganisms, an unsafe prospect for those who have suppressed immune systems. In April 2007, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General, OIG,reported that Medicare reimbursement for IVIG was inadequate to cover the cost many providers must pay for the product. In fact, the OIG found that 44 percent of hospitals and 41 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursements rate during the 3rd quarter of 2006. The previous quarter had been even worse--77.2 percent of hospitals and 96.5 percent of physicians were unable to purchase IVIG at the Medicare reimbursement rate. We have a rare opportunity to fix this very real problem with a compassionate and common sense solution. We can improve the quality of life for PIDD patients and cut inpatient expenses by improving reimbursement procedures for IVIG treatments for physicians and outpatient facilities and allowing for home treatments and coverage for related services. Today, I am introducing--along with Senators Alexander and Stabenow-- the bipartisan Medicare IVIG Access Act, a bill that will grant the Secretary of Health & Human Services temporary authority to update the payment for IVIG, if necessary based on new or existing data, and to provide coverage for related items and services currently excluded from the existing Medicare home infusion therapy benefit. This bill is endorsed by several national organizations from the patient and physician communities, including the Immune Deficiency Foundation, IDF, GBS/CIDP Foundation International, the Jeffrey Modell Foundation JMF, the Platelet Disorder Support Association, PDSA, the National Patient Advocate Foundation, NPAF, and the Clinical Immunology Society, CIS. The patients, physicians, caretakers, researchers, and plasma donors have all done their part--now it's time for us to do ours. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is National Small Business Week. This country has nearly 27 million small businesses in total, and their contributions to the country are remarkable. They create the majority-- the vast majority--of jobs, they drive the economy, and they are part of the solution to lead us out of economic downturns. But if we are going to really pay appropriate tribute to small business during Small Business Week, we frankly need to do more than simply provide lip service; we need to promote policies that work for small businesses, not policies that favor large businesses under the guise of helping small ones. In the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, we have worked on behalf of small business on a bipartisan basis. Senator Snowe, the ranking member, and I and the entire committee passed unanimously three bills to improve small business services that help America's job creators expand their payrolls. Unfortunately, these bills have been blocked for a full year by some in the Senate: S. 1256, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2007; S. 1662, the Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007; and S. 1671, the Entrepreneurial Development Act. S. 1256, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization Improvements Act, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on May 16, 2007, almost a year ago. This legislation authorizes the Small Business Administration's major lending programs which are the largest source of long-term capital for small businesses in the country. The bill also strengthens the microloan program, a concept that has proven unbelievably effective around the world in helping men and women lift themselves and their families out of poverty by accumulating assets, building wealth, and creating jobs. That is very important because the income gap, the economic gap, is growing year by year. When an average White family's net worth is $67,000 but an average African- American family's income is only $6,100, we have a long way to go in terms of creating wealth and fairness. The SBA loans fill a gap left by traditional bankers and play a significant role in meeting the capital needs of business owners in underserved areas. If S. 1256 is enacted, we will be able to leverage $87 billion in loans to more than 100,000 small businesses and reduce redtape for borrowers and lenders. S. 1662, the Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on June 26, 2007, 10 months ago. This bill would simplify the Small Business Investment Company Debenture Program so it is more attractive to investors and allow the SBA to stabilize losses in the SBIC Participating Securities Program. The version of the bill we are trying to pass does not reauthorize the SBIC Participating Securities Program, as some in the past have suggested in public debate. They used that as one of the justifications for opposing efforts to pass the bill last December. The bill focuses on improving the SBIC debenture program, which is an initiative that has actually given us extraordinary job creators, such as FedEx, Intel, Calaway Golf. They have more than repaid the cost of anything to the Federal Government through taxes paid and jobs created. In addition, S. 1662 reauthorizes the New Markets Venture Capital Program. This program addresses the market gap in venture capital for companies located in low- and moderate-income, rural, and urban areas-- i.e., high unemployment areas--as well as the need for smaller deals that neither traditional venture funds nor the SBIC Program will make. It has proven successful so far, and we need more community development venture capital to create sustainable, high-quality, local jobs. This bill would allow the SBA to start anywhere from 10 to 20 more funds. Without this Government partnership, these investments are not going to be done. So at a time when our economy is pressured and hurting, when we need to create jobs, it doesn't make sense for the Senate to be blocking something that came out of committee 19 to 0, in a totally bipartisan effort. The bill also aligns the New Markets Venture Capital Program with the New Markets Tax Credit Program, which is exactly what Congress intended. S. 1671, the Entrepreneurial Development Act, passed the Small Business Committee 19 to 0 on June 26, 2007, also 10 months ago. This act reauthorizes and improves the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurial development programs such as small business development centers, women's business centers, and SCORE. Poor management decisions are the No. 1 reason businesses declare bankruptcy. In a shaky economy, the topnotch counseling provided by these services is critical to ensuring that small businesses survive the economic downturn and continue to provide jobs and income to families and communities. This bill also increases assistance for small businesses wishing to conduct trade. Small businesses are 97 percent of all exporters, and for each additional $70,000 in exports generated, one additional U.S. job is created. These jobs pay 18 percent more on average than nontrade-related jobs. So small business success helps the economy and creates jobs. Lastly, this bill creates a number of pilot programs to help small businesses deal with rising health care costs and regulatory burdens, all of which hinder small business success. It creates new programs in support of Native American entrepreneurship and takes steps to improve small business ownership by minorities in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science, and technology, and it guides them toward entrepreneurship as a career option. These bills I have described have the ability to help more than 1 million small businesses. They would help with credit, with venture capital or with counseling. It makes no sense at all to have one or two folks in the Senate holding up the ability to move forward on these when our economy needs innovation and, frankly, the job creation these businesses create. With 80,000 jobs lost in March alone and almost 300,000 jobs lost since January, there is no time to waste. I hope we can get these bills done and do so shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time used in the colloquy we just heard not be charged to either side and that the remaining Democratic time be equally divided between Senator Webb and myself.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, exactly how much time is remaining?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Lilly Ledbetter was the only female manager working alongside 15 men at a Goodyear tire plant in Gadsden, AL. One day, she learned that, for no good reason, she had been receiving hundreds of dollars less per month than her male colleagues--even those with far less seniority. Unfortunately, the wrongs done to Lilly Ledbetter are familiar to far too many women who work every bit as hard as men do but take home a smaller paycheck. We must continue to fight to guarantee equal pay for women everywhere and justice for those women who are discriminated against. It is disgraceful that women still make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men. In fact, yesterday marked Equal Pay Day--the symbolic day on which a woman's average pay catches up to a man's average earnings from the previous year. Think of all the hours of work done since January 1--those are hours that women have worked just to bring home the same amount of money as a man. It is equivalent to months of working with no pay--something I am sure the bosses doling out unequal paychecks wouldn't stand. Unequal pay for women is an injustice whose poison works on multiple levels. Women aren't just paid less for doing the same work--they are also given a none-too-subtle message that their thoughts and efforts are less valued just because of their gender. I have two wonderful daughters, Alex and Vanessa. Alex is a filmmaker and Vanessa is a doctor. If it weren't for the women who came and marched before them, they wouldn't have had the access to high school and college sports that made such a difference in their development. But that cause isn't yet complete. The progress isn't yet perfected. We are fighting today so that they are never told that a man deserves a penny more for doing the same hard work they have done. In the face of injustice, Lilly Ledbetter and many women like her have had the courage to stand up to sexist bosses, demand her legal right to equal pay for equal work, and say ``enough is enough.'' The trial was difficult, but Lilly stood strong--and the jury awarded her a large legal settlement. Then Lilly's case ran head-on into a group of men--and one woman-- above whose heads she could not appeal: the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court's 5-to-4 ruling went against common sense and most people's sense of basic fairness. They ruled that the Equal Rights Act of 1964 requires an employee to file a discrimination claim within 180 days of a boss's decision to discriminate--rather than 180 days from the last discriminatory paycheck. Amazingly, Lilly Ledbetter didn't just lose her settlement and her standing to seek justice--she also lost future retirement benefits which will now be awarded according to decades of discriminatory pay. The ruling goes against common sense and the practical realities of the workplace. It goes against our basic sense of fairness. People often don't know what their colleagues are being paid and thus don't find out for some time that they are being discriminated against. Many never find out at all that they have been discriminated against for a lifetime—and many who do choose to stay quiet rather than rock the boat, confront their bosses, or be perceived as angry when they have every right to be. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote, ``In our view, the court does not comprehend, or is indifferent to, the insidious way in which women can be victims of pay discrimination.'' The Court's only woman took the rare and defiant step of delivering her eloquent dissent out loud. Five male Justices denied justice to thousands of women who could now be denied legal standing in similar cases, not because these women hadn't been discriminated against but because too much time had passed between the moment when their bosses started discriminating against them and the moment they either found out about it or took action to stop it. In effect, it rewards bosses for stringing out their deceit. One of these five male Justices was Samuel Alito--against whose hasty confirmation I waged a lonely filibuster battle for which I was widely criticized back in 2006. Back then, I worried and warned that Alito would create a 5-to-4 majority to deny hard-working Americans their day in court. Which is exactly what happened to Lilly Ledbetter. I don't regret my filibuster one bit--it was an important statement drawing a line in the sand against this administration's radical judicial nominees. I just wish we could have won that fight. Would Sandra Day O'Connor, the woman Alito replaced, have voted this way? I strongly suspect not. And so, with Sam Alito's decisive vote, our judicial branch struck a major blow against justice, against fair treatment for all, and against women's rights. The good news is that Congress still makes the laws--and we have the opportunity to make clear the intent of our fair pay laws and ensure that female victims of pay discrimination have their day in court. The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act clarifies what the Court ought to have known--that the laws against pay discrimination apply to every paycheck a worker receives--not to the moment a boss begins discriminating. A person only gets 180 days to file a discrimination claim--and the clock should be reset to zero every time a discriminatory paycheck goes out. We should make it easier for discrimination to be rooted out not harder. Businesses have nothing to fear from this bill--unless they are acting disgracefully, in which case they should be afraid--they should be very afraid. But employers will not be asked to make up for salary difference from decades ago--current law, rightly or wrongly, limits backpay awards to 2 years before the worker filed a job discrimination claim. This bill wouldn't change that limit. We should and must do whatever we can to chip away at discrepancies that still exist in pay between men and women. When the Equal Pay Act of 1963 passed, women were making 59 cents a dollar. Forty five years later, that number is 77 cents. In other words, women are narrowing the gap by less than half a penny a year. We must do better. If I am lucky enough to have them, I don't want my future granddaughters and great-granddaughters to wait another 45 years for equal wages. In so many ways, discriminatory pay contributes to our worst shortcomings as a society. It discriminates against children in poverty--who are far more likely than other children to be raised by single mothers. It also discriminates against women of color--who are more likely to live in households without a male income-earner. Each paycheck and each discriminatory raise compounds injustice upon injustice. Unfortunately, the pay gap runs across industries and education levels. This isn't something that fixes itself at higher levels of income. Comparing men and women with comparable education, work title, and experience, over the course of their lives, women with a high school diploma earn $700,000 less. Women with a college diploma earn $1.2 million less. And women with advanced degrees earn $2 million less over time. To our enduring shame, it was once true that American slaves were treated as three-fifths of a human being. But it remains true today that women are paid as just three-quarters of a man. We can't unravel or erase hateful attitudes toward women in a single day or with a single vote. But we have a bill before us today that will restore women's right to seek equal justice under the law. We should pass the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act today and do all that we can to live according to the truth that, while self-evident to Thomas Jefferson, remains elusive to employers everywhere: that all of us are created equal.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to take this opportunity during National Small Business Week to introduce a bipartisan Senate resolution honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of small business owners and urging the federal government to continue to improve upon its efforts to provide the guidance and assistance that has proven so valuable to small businesses across the nation. As Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am privileged to have as my Ranking Member Senator Olympia Snowe from Maine, and other Committee members who provide a voice for small business concerns and who advocate for the efficient and effective implementation of small business programs. Almost 27 million small businesses power this Nation's economy, representing 99.7 percent of all businesses, creating more than \2/3\ of all new jobs, and producing more than a quarter of our exports. Additionally, America's entrepreneurs are the minds responsible for innovations and advancing technologies that make this country resilient and competitive in the global economy and keep us on the cutting edge of technology. The marketplace can be a daunting arena for entrepreneurs to wade into, and, though they rise to the challenge with great ideas, inventive products, and thorough business plans, there remains a great deal of financial risk and uncertainty in running a small business. The support, guidance, and financial assistance offered by Small Business Administration programs have been of incredible importance to small businesses working to succeed. Mr. Robert Delhome from Wilmington, Massachusetts, is being honored by the Small Business Administration as the Massachusetts 2008 Small Business Person of the Year for his work as President of Charter Environmental, Inc. This civil and environmental contracting firm is not only at the forefront of the emerging green collar industry, but is also an example of a tremendously successful business that was able to take advantage of the SBA's 8(a) Business Development Program and transform $300 in seed capital into a $30 million a year business. What began with two determined employees and a good idea has become a business of over 100 employees providing vital services and solutions to confront challenging environmental problems. The 8(a) program offers assistance to socially and economically disadvantaged small business owners competing for Federal contracts, and Robert is but one of many entrepreneurs to have benefitted from this program. As we celebrate Earth Day today and discuss the necessity of acting quickly to find workable solutions to our environmental problems, Robert's business is both an inspiration and an indication of the economic and environmental success this industry promises. As we consider the gravity of our environmental challenges, I will continue to promote the essential role that small businesses must play in the process of turning America green, moving us away from our dependence on foreign oil, and creating the innovative industry that will help strengthen our economy. Already our Nation's entrepreneurs are leading the way to economically smart and environmentally sound business practices, and we need to ensure that the tools to become energy efficient are accessible to every small business in the country. Our rapidly rising energy costs only serve to underscore the urgency with which we must address these environmental challenges. I also continue to be concerned about the lack of small business inclusion in Federal contracts. In an effort to level the playing field, Congress set forth specific procurement goals in law, including goals for women, veteran, and minority owned businesses, but the Bush administration has proven unwilling to work quickly to meet these goals. The Women's Procurement Program is a troublesome example of a larger trend. In 2000, this program was created to ensure the Federal Government sets aside at least 5 percent of all procurement opportunities for women-owned businesses. More than 7 years later, only 3.4 percent of Federal contracts are reaching those businesses. Janet Ceddia, president of a security and fencing company in Hudson, Massachusetts, is just the type of business owner who would benefit if the Federal Government improved its efforts at reaching out to all types of small businesses. A small, disadvantaged, 8(a) certified, woman-owned company, Security Construction Services, Inc. in Hudson, Massachusetts, has grown enormously in recent years, doubling its workforce and expanding its services as the company has received $15 million in government contracts. Today, Janet's business has completed contracts for the Air Force, Army Reserve, Coast Guard, and Veterans Administration, among other agencies, and Janet was honored as the 2008 Region I Prime Contractor of the Year for her success. As Janet has proven, when given the chance, small businesses prove to be excellent partners in Federal projects. I would also like to highlight the work of Maria Gooch-Smith, who is being honored for her work as the Executive Director of the South Eastern Economic Development, SEED, Corporation in Taunton, Massachusetts. Over the last eight years, SEED has made an average of 150 loans each year, and has operated as the largest SBA 504 and Micro Lender in Massachusetts. Last year alone, SEED granted or leveraged over $105 million, which directly contributed to the creation of 637 new jobs, and, in doing so, demonstrated the vast capability of SBA 504 Certified Development Companies. It is imperative that these small business loan programs receive the necessary resources for them to maintain quality, effective programs and services to support small businesses and our local communities in a positive way. I am proud of all of the hardworking Americans who face the challenges of opening and running a small business, and I encourage us all to take this week of special recognition to reflect on the possibilities for further improving the operating climate for small business owners and to reaffirm our resolve to fight for the necessary resources to assist small businesses. I applaud the dedication, innovation, and achievements of America's entrepreneurs, and I pledge to continue to advocate on their behalf.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing legislation that would expand the availability of the Industrial Development Bond, IDB, program. The small-issue IDB program has given State and local governments a low-cost source of financing to create and retain jobs in manufacturing plants. Over the years, numerous technological advances have driven software and biotechnology to the forefront of our economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 400 biotechnology companies in Massachusetts alone, employing more than 42,000 and paying more than $5 billion in annual salaries. Currently, the small-issue IDB program is limited only to manufacturing facilities. As our economy continues to evolve, so must our policies. Our legislation would allow IDBs to be used for high- technology and biotechnology uses. The definition of manufacturing would be broadened to include the creation of intangible property-- specifically, patents, copyrights, formulas, processes, designs, patterns, know-how and other similar items. Expanding the current definition of manufacturing to include ``knowledge based'' companies would promote economic development in our local communities as well as nationwide. This legislation is supported by the Council of Development Finance Agencies. In addition to expanding the definition of manufacturing, the legislation clarifies that a manufacturing facility includes functionally related and subordinate facilities as part of the facility. This legislation will provide a boost to the economy by fostering development in technology. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense change.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing legislation that would expand the availability of the Industrial Development Bond, IDB, program. The small-issue IDB program has given State and local governments a low-cost source of financing to create and retain jobs in manufacturing plants. Over the years, numerous technological advances have driven software and biotechnology to the forefront of our economy. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are more than 400 biotechnology companies in Massachusetts alone, employing more than 42,000 and paying more than $5 billion in annual salaries. Currently, the small-issue IDB program is limited only to manufacturing facilities. As our economy continues to evolve, so must our policies. Our legislation would allow IDBs to be used for high- technology and biotechnology uses. The definition of manufacturing would be broadened to include the creation of intangible property-- specifically, patents, copyrights, formulas, processes, designs, patterns, know-how and other similar items. Expanding the current definition of manufacturing to include ``knowledge based'' companies would promote economic development in our local communities as well as nationwide. This legislation is supported by the Council of Development Finance Agencies. In addition to expanding the definition of manufacturing, the legislation clarifies that a manufacturing facility includes functionally related and subordinate facilities as part of the facility. This legislation will provide a boost to the economy by fostering development in technology. I urge my colleagues to support this common sense change.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, to many young people, from all walks of life, are either struggling to pay for college or flat out can't afford it. Those who aren't able to incur the steep costs of a college education are not only losing out on a degree, but setting themselves up to face a lifetime of lost opportunities, as study after study shows college graduates are the most attractive candidates for the fastest- growing and best-paying jobs of tomorrow. Greater college access, gained through financial assistance, is critical to making the American dream a reality for all. Yet prospective student borrowers are about to encounter massive impediments to acquiring quality, affordable private loans. The credit crunch currently impacting the home mortgage sector is set to extend to the student loan marketplace. Without sufficient liquidity in the market, student borrowers will find it harder and harder to find loans for their costs of college next year. According to FinAid.org, student loan originators are increasingly choosing to exit or suspend their participation in all or part of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFELP--45 since last August alone. Unfortunately, however, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bemanke has indicated that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to take aggressive action at this time to help the student loan marketplace. Therefore, I am seeking to address this significant issue by introducing the Emergency Student Loan Market Liquidity Act. This legislation will temporarily amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to invest surplus funds not needed for advances to its member banks for student loan-related securities. It would also allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to accept student loans and student loan-related securities as collateral. Finally, the bill authorizes each Federal Home loan Bank to provide secured advances to its members to originate student loans or finance student loan-related activities. This will provide funds for banks to help provide critically-needed student loans during these difficult economic times. The Federal Home Loan Banks are today an essential source of stable, low-cost funds to financial institutions for home mortgage, small business, and rural and agricultural loans. With their members, the Federal Home Loan Banks represent one of the largest sources of home mortgage and community credit. There are twelve Federal Home Loan Banks, including one in Boston, each located in different regions of the country. Their cooperative structure is ideal for serving the system's 8,100 member lenders. Today, the Federal Home Loan Banks provide billions of dollars of primary liquidity to approximately 80 percent of the Nation's financial institutions. By providing this additional student loan authorization to its members, member institutions will be able to remain active in the student loan marketplace and help students pay for their education. This legislation is absolutely vital to securing the opportunity of higher education for all who choose to pursue it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, to many young people, from all walks of life, are either struggling to pay for college or flat out can't afford it. Those who aren't able to incur the steep costs of a college education are not only losing out on a degree, but setting themselves up to face a lifetime of lost opportunities, as study after study shows college graduates are the most attractive candidates for the fastest- growing and best-paying jobs of tomorrow. Greater college access, gained through financial assistance, is critical to making the American dream a reality for all. Yet prospective student borrowers are about to encounter massive impediments to acquiring quality, affordable private loans. The credit crunch currently impacting the home mortgage sector is set to extend to the student loan marketplace. Without sufficient liquidity in the market, student borrowers will find it harder and harder to find loans for their costs of college next year. According to FinAid.org, student loan originators are increasingly choosing to exit or suspend their participation in all or part of the Federal Family Education Loan Program, FFELP--45 since last August alone. Unfortunately, however, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bemanke has indicated that the Federal Reserve is unlikely to take aggressive action at this time to help the student loan marketplace. Therefore, I am seeking to address this significant issue by introducing the Emergency Student Loan Market Liquidity Act. This legislation will temporarily amend the Federal Home Loan Bank Act to allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to invest surplus funds not needed for advances to its member banks for student loan-related securities. It would also allow the Federal Home Loan Banks to accept student loans and student loan-related securities as collateral. Finally, the bill authorizes each Federal Home loan Bank to provide secured advances to its members to originate student loans or finance student loan-related activities. This will provide funds for banks to help provide critically-needed student loans during these difficult economic times. The Federal Home Loan Banks are today an essential source of stable, low-cost funds to financial institutions for home mortgage, small business, and rural and agricultural loans. With their members, the Federal Home Loan Banks represent one of the largest sources of home mortgage and community credit. There are twelve Federal Home Loan Banks, including one in Boston, each located in different regions of the country. Their cooperative structure is ideal for serving the system's 8,100 member lenders. Today, the Federal Home Loan Banks provide billions of dollars of primary liquidity to approximately 80 percent of the Nation's financial institutions. By providing this additional student loan authorization to its members, member institutions will be able to remain active in the student loan marketplace and help students pay for their education. This legislation is absolutely vital to securing the opportunity of higher education for all who choose to pursue it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished assistant leader for his comments and his leadership in this area. As he may recall, we were together at a meeting at the White House a month and a half, 2 months ago now with the President, with Secretary Paulson, Vice President Cheney, and a small group of Senators there to talk about the stimulus package. As I know he may recall, I raised at that time the housing crisis, saying to the President that the entire cause of everything that was bringing us there to discuss the stimulus was in fact the subprime crisis and that no stimulus package should be passed that didn't in effect stem the tide of foreclosures and address the uncertainties in the marketplace and the lack of confidence. So I know he joins me in expressing regret that not withstanding the nodding heads and comments of affirmation, absolutely nothing happened. Nothing happened. Sadly, it is not until the Federal Government puts up $400 billion to bail out Bear Stearns and other investment banks that you really get some kind of response from the Federal Government. I am not complaining that they should not have done what they did with respect to Bear Stearns and other investment banks because the implications of their failure could have had a profound impact, spilling down into our economy. But when the pain is trickling up to a Bear Stearns, and finally the administration notices--that very same pain has been felt for over a year now by people being foreclosed on in the economy--it really is an underscoring of the degree to which an administration is out of touch with the real concerns and realities in the life of the American people. We need to show that commitment, here and now, in passing this foreclosure act to deal with the problem nationally. We need to do it now. It is long overdue. As many as 8,000 foreclosures are occurring daily. Some of these loans we know were absolutely predatory; almost, I believe, criminal. People knowingly went out, knowingly made loans to people they knew were not capable, ultimately, of meeting the adjusted rate mortgages, but because of the benefit to them and the immediate take in terms of the points they would make and the commissions and returns on those transactions, they went ahead and did it. Frankly, some of those came from the very same people who have just been bailed out by the Federal Government. I commend our majority leader for his efforts to bring this to the Senate floor now and his efforts, together with Senator Dodd, to try to work through this particular legislation. Let me share with my colleagues, last weekend--things have gotten so bad in Boston that Mayor Tom Merino recently opened a war room where city officials are working together on a day-by-day basis to fight the wave of foreclosures that we have seen in recent days. A few months ago I was in the city of Brockton in Massachusetts and met with the mayor. He said: You have to take a moment and come upstairs and meet with me with these folks who are here, and impromptu we went upstairs and there was a group of people from the community who came together in desperation to try to figure out how they were going to deal with the foreclosures in Brockton. This mayor had already processed some 400 foreclosures in Brockton, and he was staring at an additional 800 or so that were going to come at them. What happens to a community already struggling to get their economy back on track when they face that kind of wave of foreclosures is, street by street, house by house, as they get boarded up and people leave the homes, the rest of the property values start to go down--the local gas station, the local 7-Eleven, the pharmacy--everybody begins to feel the impact. But most important, from the mayor's point of view and from the Government's point of view, they begin to see a decline in revenues. The only place mayors can go in any kind of wholesale fashion to deal with a decline of revenues is to cut fire, police, and schools. There are plenty of communities in America where we have already seen those kinds of reductions, all of which run completely counter to how we build a community and to what we are trying to do in order to restore economic strength in the country. Just this last weekend I attended, with Mayor Menino, at a high school in Roxbury, in Massachusetts, in Boston, a homeowner foreclosure prevention workshop. I was literally stunned at the numbers of people who had come into this high school on a Sunday afternoon, bringing all their financial records because they had been unable to get hold of a real human being to talk to in order to try to work out a reasonable agreement for what they could pay and be able to stay in their homes. Rather than face one of those endless phone calls where you press 2 to talk to somebody who will tell you to press 4 who will give you an automated response to press 7 or whatever it is--we have the lenders there. We brought the various lenders there and people were able to go through a screening process and then go back to a room, sit down with the lenders, tell them their predicament, and actually negotiate a refinancing. I met people that afternoon who were smiling, who said to me: Thank you for getting us together. Now I can stay in my home. That is all it takes, that kind of effort. I talked to one woman who, together with her husband, is paying $5,000 a month for their home, for their mortgage. They have two mortgages now. They are both working, both of them are working. But I asked her what her rate was. What are you paying for a rate? She said: Well, I am paying 7.25 percent on one, and I am paying 9.25 percent on the other. Nobody, with the current discount rates in America, is paying those kinds of rates. It is absurd. I also had the woman next to that particular one who was waiting in line, who, when she heard the 7.25 and 9.25 said: That is nothing. I am paying 13.25 percent on mine. So if we were to renegotiate, according to a fair standard of what the rate is, with what the national interest rates are today, and fixed rates that are available to people, a lot of those folks could stay in their homes, and they can afford to service their mortgage. What we need do is stop the greed and unbelievable sort of arrogance of some of these companies, some of those people who asked literally to be able to renegotiate: We were told no. I will tell you in a moment about a woman I met in Lawrence, MA, where this predicament is also going on. The fact is that nationwide, by last year, we all knew that 2.5 million mortgages were already in default. That was 40 percent more than 2 years earlier. And despite a 40-percent increase, there was no response from this administration. Communities across the country are being hit hard. Last year the mortgage foreclosures in Massachusetts alone were up 128 percent, and the foreclosure rates of five Massachusetts metro areas were in the top 100 in this country. How did we get here? Well, we got here because lenders lowered their standards for lending but did not appropriately plan for the increased risk they incurred when they lowered the standards. They flooded the market with mortgage loans, ignoring the risks to borrowers and to their own bottom line. As usual, most of these people turn around and expect us to bail them out; in most cases to bail them out first. For some time, some of us here in Congress have been screaming about predatory lending practices. I happen to think it is usury to allow 30 percent rates. A whole bunch of Americans do not know they are actually paying 30 percent rates after a group of penalties on their credit cards. There are even more Americans, millions of them, who are paying 18 percent. I urge any American to go back and look at what their rate is at the bottom in the fine print on their credit card or ATM statements and they will be shocked by the levels of interest they are paying. I think these are excessive. These are wrong. Many people I know, all those of us who went to law school, learned about ``buyer beware,'' ``caveat emptor.'' That is one of the first things you learn in law school. But the fact is, we put standards in place through the years as to what is an unfair practice. We have unfair trade practice laws in many States, and they are simply not being applied. But legislators in this case have backed up and turned a blind eye to what are unfair practices in the marketplace. Now, were there abuses on the other side of the ledger? The answer is: Yes, there were. Some homeowners inflated their income. Some misrepresented themselves to get a bigger home than they could afford, and obviously we are not talking about bailing out people from those kinds of situations. But there is blame enough to go around. I will tell you what has not been enough to go around, and that is a rapid and appropriate response from the Federal Government in order to deal with this problem. Lenders are now getting help. But homeowners are still struggling. The fact is there are a lot of homeowners out there who have the ability to pay for a mortgage. They cannot carry the increased rates and they cannot necessarily carry the inflated levels that some of them have been put into because of these predatory practices. Let me give you an example. This week I went to Lawrence, MA and met with homeowners who are facing foreclosure. Approximately 700 homes were foreclosed in Lawrence last year alone. I am told that number is going to rise for this year. I talked with a woman by the name of Rosa Hernandez, who has four children, works two jobs, one as a nursing assistant at the local nursing home, in order to support her family and to be able to earn enough to own her home. She did everything she could in order to make her house a home. She fixed the roof, she bought a new boiler, she updated the electrical system of her new house, and she did it with this increase in value that the company came and loaned her. After she was hospitalized twice last year she could no longer afford to work two jobs. At the same time her subprime mortgage interest rates went up from 4.5 percent 5 years ago to 7.5 percent. She told me, through a translator, that when she could not make the payments, she went to her lender. Her lender refused to make loan modifications that would allow her to stay in her home. Her lender told her they were going to devalue her home down to about $99,000. I think she had a total of $220,000 in the home. They are going to devalue it to $99,000 and put it on the market and sell it. She said: I can afford to pay $99,000. Let me stay in it for that. They refused to let her stay in, even though she could service that payment with the job she has with a family of four, stay in her home. They are prepared to kick her out and then put it on the market and sell it to someone else for the same price. That is disgraceful. That is disgusting. And that is the kind of unregulated practice that is taking place out there because people have walked away from any sense of common decency and responsibility. The fact is that thousands of families such as hers have been through the same kind of predicament where they are forced to start all over again. Each time a house is foreclosed on, a family's economic dream lies in tatters. But it is not only the family that faces the foreclosure that suffers; the entire community suffers. I have talked to police officers who tell me about the increased work they have now to try to patrol by houses that they know are abandoned and boarded up. The property values of entire streets and communities start to drop, which affects the entire ability of that community to be able to function. As I described earlier, crime rates go up, neighborhoods get torn apart, schools are disrupted because when the family gets kicked out, kids are yanked out of the classroom and you end up with a complete disruption to the school system. According to the census, by late 2007 a higher percentage of houses in the Northeast sat vacant than at any time in the last 50 years, probably since the Great Depression. So today we are debating the Foreclosure Act of 2008. This has the opportunity to be able to deal with this crisis. It reflects a bipartisan compromise. It is a good first step toward addressing this crisis. It includes a provision, and I thank Senator Smith from Oregon for his long participation with me in this effort as a member of the Finance Committee. We both passed an amendment in the Finance Committee to the stimulus package. We had hoped this would have been included in the stimulus package a few months ago so this good could have begun to take hold so that families who have been foreclosed on in the last few months would not have been. Regrettably it did not happen. But we are here now. I am appreciative of him and his efforts to help include that in the bill to provide an additional $10 billion. We originally sought $15 billion of tax-exempt private activity bonds that finance our housing agencies. What the housing agencies would do with this money is take the proceeds from the bonds and use them directly to refinance subprime loans, provide mortgages for first-time home buyers, for multifamily rental housing. In the case of Massachusetts, that would mean about $211 million of targeted mortgage relief to the homeowners of our State. Similarly, every State in the country would benefit from this provision. I thank Chairman Baucus and Senator Dodd for their efforts to include this provision in the final bill because of what it can do to help struggling families. In 2006, State and local governments financed 120,000 new homes with mortgage revenue bonds. With the additional $10 billion in funds, States and localities can equal that amount and finance approximately 80,000 more home loans. According to the National Association of Home Builders, every mortgage revenue bond new home loan produces almost two full-time jobs, $75,000 in additional wages and salaries, $41,000 in new Federal, State, and local revenues. Each new home then results in an average of about $3,700 that gets spent by the new occupants on appliances, furnishings, property alterations, all of which provide a real shot in the arm to our economy. The reason this mortgage revenue bond proposal is so important is that to many lower income families, they are having difficulty refinancing their existing mortgages. This additional funding makes it easier for families facing foreclosure. It will make it easier for first-time home buyers to buy a home, which means that the glut in the marketplace today of all of those homes that have already been foreclosed will finally find a group of people because of these bonds who will be able to take those houses off the market and become part of the community. The goal is simple. We want to provide assistance to those who need it most. The extra $10 billion for this program is a proven way to help Rosa Hernandez or others be able to stay in their homes. I might add also, before I close and cede the floor to my colleague, there is in this bill also $4 billion for the community development block grant, which a number of us have advocated strongly for, that will also help local communities to deal with the effects of the housing crisis. As we all know, the community development block grant is the only real flexibility mayors get in dealing with crises in their community. So I am delighted that is here and that we can help local governments be able to deal with this crisis. Finally, there is a provision I fought for in this legislation that I am pleased is in it, which is the proposal I put forward to address the foreclosure concerns of our returning veterans. Those who have served our country in Iraq and Afghanistan should never come home to a home that is in danger of foreclosure. But some are. You have a lot of National Guard folks who are doing their second or third deployment, and many of these people are in small businesses, or in some cases even sole proprietors. They have taken a pay cut, in many cases, to serve their country. They do not get paid as much for serving on active duty. The result is that many of them have been put into difficulty. What we do is extend the foreclosure grace period from 90 days to 9 months, and we extend the freeze on mortgage interest rates for the first year a soldier is home. This is one of the ways we can make good on the rhetoric which is present all over the country about how we care for the veterans but, in fact, whether it is the VA budget or counseling or post-traumatic stress syndrome, or a host of other things, we have rarely put enough money there to keep pace with that rhetoric. This helps to do it. I do thank Senator Dodd for his work to include those provisions in this bill. I do not think anybody wants to see an Iraq or Afghanistan or any other area veteran join their brothers and sisters who served in Vietnam, too many of whom were in the ranks of the homeless or the dispossessed during those years. We owe them more for their plights. This helps to do that. I close by drawing attention to the fact that a record 37.3 million households currently pay more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, and more than 17 million Americans are paying more than half of their income to be in their homes. So as we consider additional remedies down the road, I hope we are going to deal with the fact that we can create jobs while easing the affordable lending housing crisis if we were to pass this and pay more attention. I used to be chairman of the Housing Subcommittee on Banking before I went over to Finance. I know for almost 10 years we were struggling to get one voucher or two for housing. It wasn't until 1999 that we got the first 50,000 vouchers in 10 years and the year after 100,000. But we have neglected housing as a matter of national policy for almost 20 years now. What some of us wish to do is create a housing trust fund that takes money from the surplus that comes through the FHA lending program, insurance program. But the money that housing produces in surplus actually goes to the general revenue. Some of us believe money produced by housing, that creates a profit in effect or a surplus for the Federal Government, ought to go back into housing rather than continually have housing be the stepchild of American policy. We hope we will ultimately be able to do that. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation. I thank my colleague from Oregon for his patience and, most importantly, for his coefforts in this initiative. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I call up amendment No. 4332.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, as the Senator from New Hampshire has said, this is a slight variation of the amendment we just passed. It is an idea we have been working on, on a bipartisan basis and hopefully in the conference the two amendments can be melded into one. We didn't have time to do it now, but I look forward to seeing it pass. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Representatives Ellsworth and Emanuel and Senator Obama and I are introducing the Fair Share Act of 2008 which ends the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. On March 6 2008, Farah Stockman of the Boston Globe reported that Kellogg, Brown and Root Inc. KBR, has avoided payroll taxes by hiring workers through shell companies in the Cayman Islands. The article estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll taxes have been avoided a disturbing, yet not all too surprising discovery. KBR is an American engineering and construction company, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, based in Houston, TX. Throughout its history, KBR and its predecessors have won numerous contracts with the United States military. In recent years, however, many of these contracts have been called into question based on everything from wasteful spending to mismanagement and lack of competition. The evasion of payroll taxes is yet one more serious misstep. The Fair Share Act of 2008 will end the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act to treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies performing services under contract with the U.S. Government as American employers for the purpose of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. The legislation will apply to foreign subsidiaries of a U.S. parent. The degree of common ownership applied by the legislation is 50 percent, meaning that the U.S. parent would have to own more than 50 percent of the subsidiary. In addition, the legislation addresses the situation in which a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation subcontracts with its foreign subsidiary to perform a contract with the U.S Government. In this situation, the legislation would apply to wages paid by the foreign subsidiary to its U.S. employees. The legislation does not address the situation in which the foreign parent contracts directly with the U.S. Government. Present law will continue to apply to totalization agreements. The legislation applies to services performed after the date of enactment. The bottom line is this: Federal contractors should not be allowed to use tax loopholes to avoid paying U.S. Medicare and Social Security taxes on behalf of their American employees working in Iraq. Furthermore, KBR should not have a competitive advantage over its U.S. competitors because it sets up sham corporations to avoid paying its fair share of U.S. payroll taxes. Failing to contribute to Social Security and Medicare thousands of times over is not shielding the taxpayers they claim to protect, it is costing our citizens. At a time when as much as $300 billion per year in taxes goes uncollected by the government, and by some estimates more than a third of that money may be related to corporations using offshore tax havens, we should close every loophole possible. Just last week, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, went to the Caymans to investigate U.S. companies' offshore operations. The GAO went to look at the buildings where U.S. corporations locate shell corporations. These corporations are often nothing more than a computer file. According to the Boston Globe, the KBR Cayman Island corporations do not even have an office or a phone number. I commend Senators Baucus and Grassley for requesting this investigation. As a member of the Finance Committee, I will continue working to close corporate loopholes that are fueled by greed. I urge my colleagues to support ending this egregious practice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Representatives Ellsworth and Emanuel and Senator Obama and I are introducing the Fair Share Act of 2008 which ends the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. On March 6 2008, Farah Stockman of the Boston Globe reported that Kellogg, Brown and Root Inc. KBR, has avoided payroll taxes by hiring workers through shell companies in the Cayman Islands. The article estimates that hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll taxes have been avoided a disturbing, yet not all too surprising discovery. KBR is an American engineering and construction company, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton, based in Houston, TX. Throughout its history, KBR and its predecessors have won numerous contracts with the United States military. In recent years, however, many of these contracts have been called into question based on everything from wasteful spending to mismanagement and lack of competition. The evasion of payroll taxes is yet one more serious misstep. The Fair Share Act of 2008 will end the practice of U.S. Government contractors setting up shell companies in foreign jurisdictions to avoid payroll taxes. The legislation amends the Internal Revenue Code and the Social Security Act to treat foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies performing services under contract with the U.S. Government as American employers for the purpose of Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. The legislation will apply to foreign subsidiaries of a U.S. parent. The degree of common ownership applied by the legislation is 50 percent, meaning that the U.S. parent would have to own more than 50 percent of the subsidiary. In addition, the legislation addresses the situation in which a U.S. subsidiary of a foreign corporation subcontracts with its foreign subsidiary to perform a contract with the U.S Government. In this situation, the legislation would apply to wages paid by the foreign subsidiary to its U.S. employees. The legislation does not address the situation in which the foreign parent contracts directly with the U.S. Government. Present law will continue to apply to totalization agreements. The legislation applies to services performed after the date of enactment. The bottom line is this: Federal contractors should not be allowed to use tax loopholes to avoid paying U.S. Medicare and Social Security taxes on behalf of their American employees working in Iraq. Furthermore, KBR should not have a competitive advantage over its U.S. competitors because it sets up sham corporations to avoid paying its fair share of U.S. payroll taxes. Failing to contribute to Social Security and Medicare thousands of times over is not shielding the taxpayers they claim to protect, it is costing our citizens. At a time when as much as $300 billion per year in taxes goes uncollected by the government, and by some estimates more than a third of that money may be related to corporations using offshore tax havens, we should close every loophole possible. Just last week, the Government Accountability Office, GAO, went to the Caymans to investigate U.S. companies' offshore operations. The GAO went to look at the buildings where U.S. corporations locate shell corporations. These corporations are often nothing more than a computer file. According to the Boston Globe, the KBR Cayman Island corporations do not even have an office or a phone number. I commend Senators Baucus and Grassley for requesting this investigation. As a member of the Finance Committee, I will continue working to close corporate loopholes that are fueled by greed. I urge my colleagues to support ending this egregious practice. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I welcome the Senate passage of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The bill is a long overdue response to a health crisis for our country's American Indians and would at last strengthen and expand health services to those who need it most and those to whom promises were made but far too few promises have been kept. The last comprehensive reauthorization of IHCIA took place in 1992--and since then, progress has been ground to a halt in the Senate while health disparities for American Indians have dramatically widened. The situation is dire. Today, American Indians suffer from disproportionately higher rates of diabetes, heart disease, suicide, and several types of cancer than all other groups in the United States: 2.6 times more likely to be diagnosed with diabetes; 630 percent more likely to die from alcoholism; and a life expectancy nearly 6 years shorter than the rest of the U.S. population. The gap between the needs of this community and the resources dedicated to addressing them is stark: fewer mental health professionals available to treat Indians than the rest of the U.S. population; health care expenditures for Indians less than half of what America spends for Federal prisoners. It goes without saying that we should invest the necessary funds in improving health coverage and care for American Indians, which is why it is so important that the Indian Health Care Improvement Act modernizes Indian health care services and helps ensure at least that money is no longer the biggest impediment to quality health care in Indian Country. In my home State, the status of Indian health care is particularly daunting: inadequate health facilities, mental health services and assisted living care for the elderly; the percentage of American Indians with poor emotional health is on average 2.1 times higher than the adult Massachusetts population; an obesity rate twice as high as the rate for Massachusetts adults in general. Moreover, the percentage of Mashpee Wampanoag adults with diabetes is nearly two times higher than the rest of the adult population in our State. During the 5 years between 1999 and 2004, American Indian mothers were over three times more likely to smoke during pregnancy than all mothers giving birth in Massachusetts. American Indian students have much higher percentages of smoking, drinking alcohol before age 13, and lifetime cocaine use than all other students in Massachusetts. Also, 1 in 4 American Indian high school students have reported attempting suicide compared to 1 out of 10 for all other students. The Indian health bill is an important step we must take to begin reversing these troubling statistics in Massachusetts and across the Nation. This bill can mark a new day of at last addressing the health care needs of Indian Country programs to increase the outreach and enrollment of Indians in Medicaid and CHIP and improve the ability for tribes to participate in managed care health plans. The Indian Health Care Improvement Act brings greater access to health care services, improved medical insurance coverage, and education of disease prevention and healthy lifestyles. The Senate came together across partisan lines to take a step forward with Indian Country, and I look forward to the quick passage of the bill and ultimately to seeing it signed into law by President Bush. This must be the beginning, not the end, of a new compact with Indian Country--and a renewed commitment to making sure that no American's health suffers because they are born on a farm, in a city, or on a reservation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Ensign and I are introducing the MOBILE Cell Phone Act, Modernize Our Bookkeeping in the Law for Employees' Cell Phone Act 2008. The purpose of this legislation is to 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 logsheets. 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, seven 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 2008 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 from office phones or computers. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense change. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.