John Kerry

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.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the Congress and in Washington these last years, there has been a tragic disconnect between the words spoken about keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country, and the actions actually taken to make those words count. From the tragic conditions at Walter Reed to the backlog of claims at the Veterans Administration, there has been a long list of problems unaddressed--and of problems that arose because someone, somewhere didn't plan ahead to prevent problems for those who sacrifice for all of us. Today we know from VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night and that nearly 400,000 veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year--a national disgrace to consider that in the richest country on the planet perhaps one out of every three homeless men sleeping in a doorway, alley or box once wore the uniform of our country. We also know from the Bush administration's own U.S. Labor Department, that, for example, in 2006, the unemployment rate for young veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was 15 percent, more than triple the national average back then. We know that too many unemployed veterans are National Guard or Reserve troops who were called to duty but found when they came home that their old jobs were gone, that they'd lost their place in line in the local economy, or that the small businesses they'd left behind to serve overseas were in dire straits when they came home. We know these two challenges--the homeless rates for veterans and the unemployment numbers for veterans--demand big solutions, and we are working to provide them. But we should also know by now that the least we can do is stop these problems from becoming worse. We have seen a wave of foreclosures send a ripple effect across the economy. By late 2007, 2.5 million mortgages were in default--a 40 percent increase from just 2 years earlier. Last month, foreclosures in Massachusetts alone were up 128 percent from the previous January. In fact, in 2007 alone 1.6 million Americans defaulted on their home loans, and as many as 3.5 million more are expected to do the same by mid-2010. Every U.S. Senator would agree that the thought of our men and women in uniform being thrown out of their homes because of mortgage foreclosures is miles beyond unacceptable. The question is, in the middle of a national housing crisis and a subprime mortgage collapse, what can be done--done at a minimum--to ensure that Washington acts to shield veterans from becoming the faces of the foreclosure crisis, and from making today's Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the faces of tomorrows' homeless and jobless populations. We know that the soaring and staggering foreclosure statistics are directly affecting Americans from all walks of life, and our military is not exempt from the pain. The least we can do today is make it clear that we will pay some small measure of respect to veterans by helping them avoid foreclosure. They need more time and greater flexibility as they return to civilian life. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves has urged us to take preventative action. The Commission found that the transition from military to civilian life extends well beyond the current timelines which forces many service members to focus their attention on imminent foreclosure instead of first locating a competitive job or addressing any mental or physical health concerns that they may be facing. That is why today I am introducing commonsense legislation that would protect servicemembers and veterans involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing a longer grace period for payment. My bill would extend the time from 90 days to 1 year the time period that a servicemember is protected from foreclosure. By extending the deadline to 1 year, I hope we can take one small step to prevent future homelessness throughout the veteran's community. If America's leaders truly support our troops, we owe them more than a polite thank you and best wishes. We owe them action. We cannot tolerate a pattern in Washington that has persisted for too long-- provide lip service about supporting the troops but not the lifesaving body armor they need; talk a good game about veterans but cut funding for their healthcare. It is wrong, and it is time for it to end. We should act now to ensure that those saddled with the burden of the mortgage crisis are not those who have carried the greatest responsibility for America overseas in the fight for freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``The President's FY2009 Budget Request for the Small Business Administration,'' on Wednesday, February 27, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the Congress and in Washington these last years, there has been a tragic disconnect between the words spoken about keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country, and the actions actually taken to make those words count. From the tragic conditions at Walter Reed to the backlog of claims at the Veterans Administration, there has been a long list of problems unaddressed--and of problems that arose because someone, somewhere didn't plan ahead to prevent problems for those who sacrifice for all of us. Today we know from VA estimates that nearly 200,000 veterans are homeless on any given night and that nearly 400,000 veterans experience homelessness over the course of a year--a national disgrace to consider that in the richest country on the planet perhaps one out of every three homeless men sleeping in a doorway, alley or box once wore the uniform of our country. We also know from the Bush administration's own U.S. Labor Department, that, for example, in 2006, the unemployment rate for young veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was 15 percent, more than triple the national average back then. We know that too many unemployed veterans are National Guard or Reserve troops who were called to duty but found when they came home that their old jobs were gone, that they'd lost their place in line in the local economy, or that the small businesses they'd left behind to serve overseas were in dire straits when they came home. We know these two challenges--the homeless rates for veterans and the unemployment numbers for veterans--demand big solutions, and we are working to provide them. But we should also know by now that the least we can do is stop these problems from becoming worse. We have seen a wave of foreclosures send a ripple effect across the economy. By late 2007, 2.5 million mortgages were in default--a 40 percent increase from just 2 years earlier. Last month, foreclosures in Massachusetts alone were up 128 percent from the previous January. In fact, in 2007 alone 1.6 million Americans defaulted on their home loans, and as many as 3.5 million more are expected to do the same by mid-2010. Every U.S. Senator would agree that the thought of our men and women in uniform being thrown out of their homes because of mortgage foreclosures is miles beyond unacceptable. The question is, in the middle of a national housing crisis and a subprime mortgage collapse, what can be done--done at a minimum--to ensure that Washington acts to shield veterans from becoming the faces of the foreclosure crisis, and from making today's Iraq and Afghanistan veterans the faces of tomorrows' homeless and jobless populations. We know that the soaring and staggering foreclosure statistics are directly affecting Americans from all walks of life, and our military is not exempt from the pain. The least we can do today is make it clear that we will pay some small measure of respect to veterans by helping them avoid foreclosure. They need more time and greater flexibility as they return to civilian life. The Commission on the National Guard and Reserves has urged us to take preventative action. The Commission found that the transition from military to civilian life extends well beyond the current timelines which forces many service members to focus their attention on imminent foreclosure instead of first locating a competitive job or addressing any mental or physical health concerns that they may be facing. That is why today I am introducing commonsense legislation that would protect servicemembers and veterans involved in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan by securing a longer grace period for payment. My bill would extend the time from 90 days to 1 year the time period that a servicemember is protected from foreclosure. By extending the deadline to 1 year, I hope we can take one small step to prevent future homelessness throughout the veteran's community. If America's leaders truly support our troops, we owe them more than a polite thank you and best wishes. We owe them action. We cannot tolerate a pattern in Washington that has persisted for too long-- provide lip service about supporting the troops but not the lifesaving body armor they need; talk a good game about veterans but cut funding for their healthcare. It is wrong, and it is time for it to end. We should act now to ensure that those saddled with the burden of the mortgage crisis are not those who have carried the greatest responsibility for America overseas in the fight for freedom. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the FISA bill that passed the Senate yesterday could have and should have been a better bill. There is no charitable explanation for why the U.S. Senate failed to pass a bill that demonstrates at once that we can protect our national security and protect the Constitution of the United States and the rights of law-abiding American citizens at the same time. September 11 was a wakeup call for millions about a global struggle against extremism--and the need to modernize our Government to win that struggle. September 11 also began a debate in our country over how we can win the struggle against extremists without losing sight of who we are and what we value as Americans. Former Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor described the challenge best: We must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad. Congress has a duty to protect the American people--and to protect the Constitution. That is the oath we take. It is a solemn pledge. That is why this debate, and this vote in the Senate is so disappointing: This latest FISA law does not live up to the words we speak when we take that oath in the Senate. Instead, rather than produce a bill that made us stronger in the fight against extremism, colleagues on the other side of the aisle summarily rejected every effort this week to give the President of the United States the added flexibility needed to hunt down and capture terrorists while protecting the rights of law- abiding Americans. More than 6 years after 9/11, we are still searching to strike this proper balance. Once again, in the latest rushed effort in the face of partisan fear-mongering, the world's greatest deliberate body missed an opportunity to get it right. Make no mistake, today's bill is a marked improvement over the Protect America Act. But this issue is far too critical to settle for half-measures and insufficient improvements. This bill doesn't do enough to protect independent judicial oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, of sweeping Government powers. It doesn't provide the FISC the authority to assess the Government's ongoing compliance with its wiretapping procedures, and doesn't set limits on the way the Government uses information acquired about Americans. Instead, this bill leaves Americans vulnerable to continued overreaching by the executive branch. It allows the President to rely on other statutory authorities to circumvent the will of the people and conduct warrantless foreign intelligence surveillance, permits limitless ``fishing expeditions''--so-called bulk collection of all communications between the United States and overseas--and lets the government eavesdrop on Americans under the guise of targeting foreigners--what is known as ``reverse targeting.'' If we have learned anything from over 7 years of the Bush administration, it is that we cannot simply hand them a blank check and trust that they will not abuse it. The Judiciary Committee's FISA bill recognized the need for this type of robust judicial and congressional oversight in the face of ever- expanding Executive power. It systematically sought to create all of the aforementioned safeguards on liberty, while making sure to give the President the expanded set of tools required to fight terrorism in the digital age. That is the bill we should have passed. Most importantly, unlike the FISA bill that passed the Senate yesterday, the Judiciary Committee's version did not grant amnesty to telecommunications providers that were complicit in the Administration's warrantless spying program. The administration may well be deliberately stonewalling to avoid a judgment day in court. Yet, today, the Senate rewarded the President's obstructionism, providing him cover to seek political security under the guise of national security. That is wrong. It is also a slap in the face to telecommunications providers like QWEST, which in the difficult days after 9/11, courageously refused to aid the administration's warrantless wiretapping efforts and questioned their legality. Americans, who are deeply concerned about the secrecy and abuses of power that have marked this administration's years in office, and who are tired of learning information after the fact in our newspapers when whistleblowers leak it, deserve much better. This bill shreds the bipartisan principle that Americans should have their day in court-- that accountability should be preserved to adjudicate competing claims and at last shed light on the administration's secret surveillance program. It is for these reasons, after all, that Senator Specter, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, refused to grant blanket amnesty and, as he put it, ``undercut[] a major avenue of redress.'' If these lawsuits are shielded by Congress, the courts may never rule on whether the administration's surveillance activities were lawful. An impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing. That is a far cry from the U.S. Senate wiping the slate clean for the Bush administration. Everyone agrees, if the telecoms followed the law, they should get immunity, as Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our courts should decide, not Congress--and that is a matter of principle protected in the House's FISA bill. There is today, as divided as we are, very much that we agree upon: We all want to prevent terrorist attacks, we all want to gather effectively as much intelligence as possible, and we all want to bring those who would attack us to justice before they strike us. But we undermine--not strengthen--our cause when we subvert our Constitution, throw away our system of checks and balances, and disregard human dignity. We also accept a false choice between security and liberty. There is no need to. That is why, yesterday, I stood up for the belief that the rule of law isn't just compatible with--but essential to-- keeping our homeland safe. We owe Americans a better FISA bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, data from the Federal Reserve Bank and the Small Business Administration show that the home mortgage crisis is spreading, making it harder and more expensive for small businesses to get loans. Specifically, according to the Federal Reserve's survey, more than 30 percent of domestic banks indicated that they have tightened their credit standards for commercial and industrial loans to small businesses over the past three months. That same survey also found that 80 percent of the domestic banks reported tighter lending standards for commercial real estate loans--the highest percentage recorded since the Fed began posing the question 18 years ago. While that information is troubling, it is not a surprise. So far this fiscal year, the number of loans made through the SBA's largest lending program, the 7(a) loan guaranty program, dropped 14 percent compared with the same period last year, and dollar volume fell six percent. Lending in SBA's 504 loan program, after growing steadily over the last few years, and being up even three months ago, has gone flat. These figures are alarming because, historically, SBA loan activity has increased when the conventional credit market has tightened and their absence or smaller role in financing is a problem. Why? These two loan programs--the 7(a) Loan Guaranty program and the 504 Loan Guaranty program--are the largest source of long-term capital to small businesses in this country. They play an essential role in the continuum of financing to our small businesses. As we talked to lenders and SBA to try and understand what was causing this trend, we identified several changes we could make to SBA's lending programs to try and stimulate the economy. What could we do to get lenders to start lending again, and how could we make it more affordable for small businesses? The bill I am introducing today--the Small Business Lending Stimulus Act of 2008--incorporates those findings. We made the changes temporary, targeted, and timely. We have evidence that these changes work, because we did something similar, in a bipartisan way, after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, and it stimulated the economy and mitigated job loss and business closures by pumping almost $3 billion into our local economies. Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to right the economy, but we need to use every tool at our disposal to mitigate further problems for our economy. The SBA's programs are one effective tool. I hope that my colleagues can get behind this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, data from the Federal Reserve Bank and the Small Business Administration show that the home mortgage crisis is spreading, making it harder and more expensive for small businesses to get loans. Specifically, according to the Federal Reserve's survey, more than 30 percent of domestic banks indicated that they have tightened their credit standards for commercial and industrial loans to small businesses over the past three months. That same survey also found that 80 percent of the domestic banks reported tighter lending standards for commercial real estate loans--the highest percentage recorded since the Fed began posing the question 18 years ago. While that information is troubling, it is not a surprise. So far this fiscal year, the number of loans made through the SBA's largest lending program, the 7(a) loan guaranty program, dropped 14 percent compared with the same period last year, and dollar volume fell six percent. Lending in SBA's 504 loan program, after growing steadily over the last few years, and being up even three months ago, has gone flat. These figures are alarming because, historically, SBA loan activity has increased when the conventional credit market has tightened and their absence or smaller role in financing is a problem. Why? These two loan programs--the 7(a) Loan Guaranty program and the 504 Loan Guaranty program--are the largest source of long-term capital to small businesses in this country. They play an essential role in the continuum of financing to our small businesses. As we talked to lenders and SBA to try and understand what was causing this trend, we identified several changes we could make to SBA's lending programs to try and stimulate the economy. What could we do to get lenders to start lending again, and how could we make it more affordable for small businesses? The bill I am introducing today--the Small Business Lending Stimulus Act of 2008--incorporates those findings. We made the changes temporary, targeted, and timely. We have evidence that these changes work, because we did something similar, in a bipartisan way, after the terrorist attacks of 9-11, and it stimulated the economy and mitigated job loss and business closures by pumping almost $3 billion into our local economies. Unfortunately, there is no magic bullet to right the economy, but we need to use every tool at our disposal to mitigate further problems for our economy. The SBA's programs are one effective tool. I hope that my colleagues can get behind this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first I would like to thank Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their prompt action in developing this economic stimulus package. Last week, the House passed an economic stimulus package. Although it was not perfect, it did provide us with a solid foundation from which to build a comprehensive bill in the Senate. I believe the Finance Committee proposal that is before us today makes a number of crucial improvements to the House version. For that reason, I urge my colleagues to vote to invoke cloture on the Finance Committee economic stimulus package. The Finance Committee package was designed in a bipartisan manner to improve upon the House bill, not to add ``pet projects'' or so-called ``goodies.'' Our goal is not to delay the passage of an economic stimulus bill, but to provide a package that will provide a genuine stimulus that is targeted to Americans who need our help the most. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Senate package would not delay, but accelerate the delivery of a stimulus. The Finance Committee makes improvements in the following areas: structure of the rebate; business tax incentives; housing; unemployment insurance; and funding for LIHEAP. Low-income families should not receive a smaller rebate just because they do not have taxable income. These families need our help and economists that testified before the Committee have pointed out the potential for this investment to truly aid in kick-starting the economy. The Finance Committee will provide a $500 rebate to all eligible singles and $1,000 to married couples. The Senate Finance rebate is structured in a manner which will allow senior citizens receiving Social Security benefits without taxable income to be eligible for the rebate. Senior citizens are facing the same increases in food and energy prices as are other Americans and cannot be left out of the package. Many seniors in Massachusetts live on fixed incomes. They struggle to pay their medical and heating bills. Unfortunately, 20 million seniors were left out of the tax rebate in the House-passed stimulus bill. When we are contemplating distributing stimulus checks broadly across most American families, it would just be wrong not to include 20 million seniors of the Greatest Generation. Not only does the House passed economic bill exclude seniors from rebates, it excludes 250,000 disabled veterans who do not file a tax return. There is no valid reason to leave out those who were wounded while serving their country. As Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased this economic stimulus plan includes two tax provisions which Senator Snowe, who serves as the ranking member of the Committee, and I believe will help small businesses. The first provision doubles the amount of business purchases that a small business can write-off from $125,000 to $250,000 for 2008. This will provide an incentive for small businesses to purchase more equipment and expand their business. The second provision expands the carryback period for net operating losses, NOLs, from 2 to 5 years. This targeted provision will help businesses address losses. By allowing NOLs to be carried back for a longer period of time, business owners will be able to balance out net losses over years when the business has a net operating gain, helping small businesses with their cash flow. Any action we take to foster their growth benefits our economy as a whole. At the Real Estate Roundtable earlier last week, Treasury Secretary Paulson said, ``the U.S. economy is undergoing a significant housing correction. That, combined with high energy prices and capital market turmoil caused economic growth to slow rather markedly at the end of 2007, as reflected in the gross domestic product numbers.'' The GDP fell from 4.9 percent in the third quarter of 2007 to only 0.6 percent in the last quarter. A strong economic stimulus package needs to address the root of the problem--the housing crisis. The unexpected losses on subprime mortgages and the breadth of the exposure has created uncertainty in the economy. Homeowners facing higher interest rates on the subprime adjustable-rate mortgages, ARMs, and lower housing prices are having trouble refinancing. Approximately 1.7 million subprime ARMs worth $367 billion are expected to reset during 2008 and 2009. Owning your own home is the foundation of the American dream. Home ownership encourages personal responsibility, provides financial security, and gives families a stake in their neighborhoods. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association's National Delinquency Survey, there were roughly 2.5 million mortgages in default in the third quarter of 2007--an increase of about 40 percent when compared to the same quarter in 2005. A few weeks ago, I held a roundtable discussion on the economy in Massachusetts. Jim Harrington, the Mayor of Brockton, MA, told me that his city had 400 foreclosures last year and expects 400 more this year. In the City of Boston, there were 703 foreclosures in 2007 after just 261 in 2006. The dramatic increase in foreclosures in cities across the nation are lowering revenues and making it more difficult for them to respond to the housing crisis. The Finance Committee amendment includes a provision to provide $10 billion for mortgage revenue bonds. This provision is based on a bill introduced by Senator Smith and myself. It passed in the Finance Committee by a 20-1 vote. It is also important to note that President Bush, during his State of the Union Address, asked the Congress to provide additional authority for mortgage revenue bonds and included a similar provision in the budget for fiscal year 2009. Specifically, this provision would provide $10 billion of tax-exempt private activity bonds to be used to refinance subprime loans, provide mortgages for first time homebuyers and for multifamily rental housing. This provision will help families retain affordable housing. The housing crisis also affects rental housing because many families who lose their homes will move into rental housing. With the additional mortgage revenue bond authority, States and local governments could rapidly escalate demand for housing and stimulate the economy by increasing the flow of safe, non-predatory mortgage loans. In 2006, State and local governments financed 120,000 new home loans with MRBs. With the additional $10 billion in funding, States and localities can match 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 nearly two, full-time jobs, $75,000 in additional wages and salaries and $41,000 in new Federal, State and local revenues. Also, each new home loan results in an average of $3,700 in new spending on appliances, furnishings, and property alterations. Separate from mortgage revenue bonds, the Finance Committee extends unemployment benefits by thirteen weeks through the end of 2008. In December alone, the national unemployment rate shot up from 4.7 percent to 5 percent and half a million more workers joined the ranks of the employed. Labor statistics released last week show the labor market is faltering. In the past month, our economy lost 17,000 jobs. We need to extend unemployment benefits now. When it takes longer to find a job, current unemployment benefits are not adequate. Extending unemployment benefits is one of the most effective ways to stimulate the economy. Families struggling to make ends meet after losing their paycheck will spend the benefits quickly. Every dollar spent on benefits leads to $1.64 in economic growth. In addition, unemployment benefits will reach workers about two months before rebate checks start to be delivered. Finally, the Finance Committee package has been modified to include an additional $1 billion for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program--one of the most effective programs to help low-income Americans struggling with rising energy costs. According to economist Mark Zandi, an increase in LIHEAP funding should be part of a stimulus bill. Increased LIHEAP funding will eliminate the need for families to choose between food and energy costs--a choice no family should ever face. Home heating prices in Massachusetts are 44 percent higher today than they were just 1 year ago, and thousands of families will have difficulties paying their heating bills this winter. Massachusetts families will be able to benefit by approximately $22 million from this proposed increase in LIHEAP funding. Mr. President, once again, I would like to thank Chairman Baucus for his efforts in developing this important stimulus package. I ask all my colleagues to support this amendment so that more seniors, small businesses, homeowners, and hard working families struggling to make ends meet can get the assistance they deserve.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to see the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008, a bill that Senator Snowe and I developed, pass the Senate today. Veterans have sacrificed in the defense of our country, and they have earned the support of their Government in reentering civilian life. Senators Hagel, Cantwell, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Tester are cosponsors of this bill. There are currently 24 million veterans in America, including over 1.3 million who have left military service since 2001. As the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan continue, it becomes increasingly vital that returning service-members receive the assistance they need to reenter civilian life. According to the Department of Labor, the unemployment rate among recently discharged veterans is more than double the national overall unemployment rate: 11.9 percent compared to 4.6 percent. In addition, 55 percent of self-employed reservists experienced income loss when deployed, and 22 percent said that their business suffered serious or very serious harm. As chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, addressing the concerns of veteran entrepreneurs remains a top priority. In January 2007, the committee's first hearing, ``Assessing Federal Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans and Reservists,'' looked at the issues facing veterans who wish to start or grow a small business. In March, the committee released a report, ``The State of Veteran Entrepreneurship'' which described the issues facing veterans and listed a series of recommendations to fix those problems. The Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2008 is based on those recommendations. Senator Snowe and I introduced S. 1784, the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007, on July 12, 2007. In September, that bill was added by unanimous consent as an amendment to the Department of Defense authorization bill; however, unfortunately, it was dropped in the final conference negotiations. In November, after working closely to address concerns of other Members of the Senate, the bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent again, and the House took up the measure on January 16. An amended version passed the House on the same day, and the amended bill was passed by the Senate today. The House changes included removing a study looking at the tax and regulatory barriers facing veterans and reinserting Senate language requiring veteran and military service organizations to serve on a new interagency task force. Although this bill has changed from what I envisioned many months ago, it is an important step forward in supporting the American dream of business ownership for veterans and reservists, and I am gratified to see it pass the Senate and urge the President to sign it as quickly as possible. The Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007 takes a number of steps to improve the Government's role in supporting our veterans. Specifically, it reauthorizes the veterans programs in the Small Business Administration. This legislation increases the funding authorization for the Office of Veteran Business Development from $2 million today to $2.3 million over 2 years. In light of the large numbers of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and increased responsibilities placed on this office by Executive Order 13360, it is high time that the Office of Veteran Business Development receive the funding levels that it needs. The bill also creates an interagency task force to improve coordination between agencies in administrating veteran small business programs. One of the biggest complaints that our committee heard at its hearing last January was that Federal agencies do not work together in reaching out to veterans and informing them about small business programs. This task force will focus on increasing veterans' small business success, including procurement and franchising opportunities, access to capital, and other types of business development assistance. This bill also permanently extends the SBA Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The committee was created to serve as an independent source of advice and policy recommendations to the SBA, the Congress, and the President. The veteran small business owners who serve on this committee provide a unique perspective, which is sorely needed at this challenging time. Unfortunately, continuing uncertainty about the committee's future has, at times, distracted the committee from focusing on its core function. Therefore, I have called for its permanent extension. It is clear to me that more needs to be done to address the issues facing veterans and reservists, and the role this committee plays will continue to be important. Additionally, I have taken a number of steps to better serve the reservists who are serving their country abroad while their businesses are suffering at home. Over the past decade, the Department of Defense has increased its reliance on the National Guard and Reserves. This has intensified since September 11, and increased deployments are expected to continue. The effect of this increase on reservists and small businesses continues to remain of concern. A 2003 GAO report indicated that 41 percent of reservists lost income when mobilized. This had a higher effect on self-employed reservists, 55 percent of whom lost income. In 1999, I created the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program to provide loans to small businesses that incur economic injury as result of an essential employee being called to active duty. However, since 2002, fewer than 300 of these loans have been approved by the SBA, despite record numbers of reservists being called to active duty. It is clear that changes need to be made, so that reservists are informed about the availability of the MREIDL program and that the program better meets their needs. At our hearing last January, we heard suggestions for a number of changes, which would improve the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, and I have included those changes in this bill. They include increasing the application deadline for such a loan from 90 days to 1 year following the date of discharge, creating a predeployment loan approval process, and improved outreach and technical assistance. This bill also increases to $50,000 the amount SBA can disburse without requiring collateral under the MREIDL program. Reservist families have already sacrificed enough when a family member is called to serve their country. They should not have to forfeit the success of their business and their livelihood as well. This loan program would allow reservist-dependent businesses to access the capital they need to stay afloat without having to sacrifice beyond the service of the key employees. In order to give reservists time to repay the loans, the noncollateralized loan created in this bill would not accumulate interest or require payments for 1 year or until after the deployment ends, whichever is longer. There are two more provisions, which will help this Nation's servicemembers. One section of the bill will require the SBA to give priority to MREIDL loans during loan processing. Another provision will give activated servicemembers an extension of any SBA time limitations equal to the time spent on active duty. This will make it easier for servicemembers to serve their country while continuing to meet their obligations at home. Lastly, this bill calls for two reports. One report will look at the needs of service-disabled veterans who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs. As a result of the war on terror and improved medicine, we are seeing more service-disabled veterans than we have seen in decades. For some service-disabled veterans, entrepreneurship is the best or only way of achieving economic independence. Therefore, it is essential that we understand and take steps to address the needs of the service-disabled veteran entrepreneur or small business owner. This bill also calls for a study to investigate how to improve relations between reservists and their employers. In January, the committee heard that recent changes by the Department of Defense to policies regulating the length and frequency of reservist deployments is harming the ability of reservists to find jobs and the ability of small business owners to continue hiring them. Understanding more about this issue is important and essential to making sure that policymakers can continue to support citizen soldiers and the small businesses that employ them. The bill also includes a number of other important provisions that were added by the House. For instance, this bill includes language directing the Office of Veterans Business Development to increase the number of Veterans Business Outreach Centers and requires them to improve their participation in the Transition Assistance Program. This bill also creates a program reducing 7(a) loan fees for veterans, improves Small Business Development Centers outreach to the veteran community, and instructs the Associate Administrator of the Office of Veterans Business Development to create and disseminate information aimed at informing women veterans about the resources available to them. I am pleased that the House and Senate were able to come to an agreement on these provisions. Veterans possess great technical skills and valuable leadership experience, but they require financial resources and small business training to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. We owe veterans and reservists more than a simple thank you for their service. The least we can do is provide critical resources to help them start and grow small business and to hold Federal agencies accountable. That is what our bill does.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, most of the victories in the fight against terrorism have been won on foreign shores with little to no acclaim here at home. As our Nation continues the long and often silent campaign against extremism, we should not miss the opportunity to publicly praise the lifesaving achievements of our Nation's intelligence and law enforcement authorities. On this day 5 years ago, al-Qaida operative Richard Colvin Reid, also called Abdul Raheem--but known to the world simply as the ``shoe bomber''--was sentenced to life in prison. Reid sought to explode an airplane carrying 185 passengers and 12 crewmembers on their voyage across the Atlantic. Thanks to the vigilance and bravery of two flight attendants, Cristina Jones and Hermis Moutardier, Reid was discovered and detained, saving flight 63 and all on board. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Massachusetts subsequently prosecuted Reid. His confession led to the first conviction of an al-Qaida terrorist on American soil. To commemorate the occasion, I met yesterday with the case's chief prosecutor, Middlesex County district attorney Gerry Leone. I took that opportunity to congratulate him on a successful conviction, one of the highlights of Gerry's long record of public service. Like the terrorists of September 11, Reid pledged blind fealty to the hate-filled ideology of Osama bin Laden. In furtherance of his determined plot, Reid traveled to more than seven countries spanning three continents. Law enforcement authorities were able to use e-mails sent by Reid to obtain a vital glimpse into the complex global network of al-Qaida. These correspondences led authorities to discover al- Qaida-affiliated terrorist cells in London, France, and Turkey. As we commemorate Reid's conviction and express our gratitude to those like Gerry Leone who made it happen, we must remember that future victories depend on private citizens, public servants, and law enforcement officers here and abroad working in unison to keep Americans safe against terrorism.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the past few months, our country has experienced instability and volatility in its credit markets. This looming credit crisis is affecting virtually every sector of the economy, including small business financing. Since its inception in 1953, the Small Business Administration's 7(a) loan guaranty program has become the largest single source of long-term capital for small businesses. However, in the wake of the credit crunch and a slowing U.S. economy, we are now noticing that this essential financing resource is not serving nearly as many small businesses as it should. For example, during the first quarter of the 2008 fiscal year, 7(a) lending was down by 12 percent compared with the same period last year. In addition, at his State of the Agency Address this past Tuesday, SBA Administrator Steven Preston acknowledged that SBA lending was down in its largest program. The Small Business Stimulus Act of 2008 will help reverse this downward trend in small business lending. The bill will temporarily reduce the fees collected from borrowers and lenders. This will immediately reduce the cost of capital for small businesses. With lower monthly loan payments, more money will be placed into the hands of small business owners money that will be quickly injected into the economy through purchases of inventory, real estate, and equipment. The fee reduction for lenders, coupled with the government guarantee, will give them an incentive to make 7(a) loans, as banks are scrambling for ways to salvage declining revenues and take on less risky loans. A similar stimulus was adopted after 9/11, and lending increased to businesses nationwide, pumping almost $3 billion into local economies and creating or retaining more than 90,000 jobs. The bill also provides additional funding for the SBA's microloan program. As its name implies, microloans are small-scale business loans, which provide an essential financing source to underserved members of the business population, including women and minorities. This bill provides $12 million to expand the SBA's microloan program, including $2 million that will help leverage nearly $20 million in microloans. The Small Business Stimulus Act of 2008 also includes two business tax incentives that will help small businesses that are feeling the impact of the economic downturn. The first provision would increase the amount that businesses can expense from $125,000 to $200,000 for 2008. This will help businesses immediately write off business purchases. The second provision increases the net operating carry back period for losses arising in taxable years ending in 2007 and 2008 from 2 years to 5 years. This provision will help business with cash flow. Expanding the carry back allows business owners to balance out net losses over years when the business has had a net operating gain. I am confident that each of these targeted measures will provide timely, effective incentives to spur spending and encourage new investment and job growth in the hundreds of thousands of small businesses that drive this Nation's economy.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``Holding the Small Business Administration Accountable: Women's Contracting and Lender Oversight,'' on Wednesday, January 30, 2008, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a few months ago, I introduced the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act. As the chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I was gratified that I was able to work with Ranking Member Senator Snowe on behalf of this Nation's veterans. I was also pleased that this bill was added by unanimous consent as an amendment to the Department of Defense Authorization, although disappointed when the final House-Senate negotiated compromise did not make it as part of the final bill. In November, Senator Snowe and I sought to pass this bill in the Senate only to meet with objections from my respected colleague from Oklahoma. I am pleased to say that Senator Coburn has worked with me in good faith and that we have reached an agreement that addresses his concerns. We have sought to protect the language that the House and Senate agreed upon and done our utmost to improve the resources that are available to our Nation's veterans. Although this bill is not perfect or exactly as I may have envisioned, it is an important step forward in supporting the American dream of business ownership for veterans and reservists. Passing these provisions into law has been one of my highest priorities since becoming chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in January. My first hearing as chairman was devoted to veteran small business issues, and this bill arises directly from the complaints that we heard there. America's veterans and reservists have sacrificed enough in fighting for our country; they shouldn't have to sacrifice their jobs and their livelihoods when they come home. There are 25 million veterans in this country. In the last 4 years, alone, nearly 600,000 veterans have returned from serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. Roughly 56 percent are reserve and National Guard members, who continue to serve this Nation at unprecedented levels. This is taking a toll not just on their families, but on their businesses as well. We are in an era where employers do not want to hire reservists because they know they will be called up for lengthy deployments. At a Small Business Committee hearing on veterans' issues earlier this year, one of the witnesses raised concerns about a lack of employer support for reservists due to the new policy that allows reservists to be called up for a second tour of 24 months. I am also deeply concerned that recently discharged veterans have a higher unemployment rate--double that of their civilian counterparts. In addition, the number of service disabled veterans is increasing-- 167,000 discharged between 2002 and 2005-- and their self-employment rate is lower than the national average. This bill is a first step in addressing these concerns and it builds on important lessons we learned from Vietnam, not to leave another generation of veterans behind. The Military Reservists and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act of 2007 takes a number of steps to improve the Government's role in supporting our veterans. Specifically, it reauthorizes the veteran programs in the Small Business Administration. This legislation increases the funding authorization for the Office of Veteran Business Development from $2 million today to $2.3 million over 2 years. In light of the large numbers of veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan and increased responsibilities placed on this office by Executive Order 13360, it is high time that the Office of Veteran Business Development receive the funding levels that it needs. The bill also creates an Interagency Task Force to improve coordination between agencies in administrating veteran small business programs. One of the biggest complaints that our committee heard at the ``Assessing Federal Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans and Reservists'' hearing held on January 31 was that Federal agencies do not work together in reaching out to veterans and informing them about small business programs. This task force is an attempt to improve that. The task force will focus on increasing veterans' small business success, including procurement and franchising opportunities, access to capital, and other types of business development assistance. This bill also permanently extends the SBA Advisory Committee on Veterans Business Affairs. The committee was created to serve as an independent source of advice and policy recommendations to the SBA, the Congress, and the President. The veteran small business owners who serve on this committee provide a unique perspective which is sorely needed at this challenging time. Unfortunately, continuing uncertainty about the committee's future has, at times, distracted the committee from focusing on its core function. Therefore, I have called for its permanent extension. It is clear to me that more needs to be done to address the issues facing veterans and reservists, and the role this committee plays will continue to be important. Additionally, I have taken a number of steps to better serve the reservists who are serving their country abroad while their businesses are suffering at home. Over the past decade, the Department of Defense has increased its reliance on the National Guard and reserves. This has intensified since September 11 and increased deployments are expected to continue. The effect of this increase on reservists and small businesses continues to remain of concern. A 2003 GAO report indicated that 41 percent of reservists lost income when mobilized. This had a higher effect on self-employed reservists, 55 percent of whom lost income. In 1999, I created the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan, MREIDL, program to provide loans to small businesses that incur economic injury as a result of an essential employee being called to active duty. However, since 2002, fewer than 300 of these loans have been approved by the SBA, despite record numbers of reservists being called to active duty. It is clear that changes need to be made, so that reservists are informed about the availability of the MREIDL program and that the program better meets their needs. At the hearing on January 31, we heard suggestions for a number of changes which would improve the Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Loan program, and I have included those changes in this bill. They include increasing the application deadline for such a loan from 90 days to 1 year following the date of discharge; creating a predeployment loan approval process; and improved outreach and technical assistance. This bill also increases to $50,000 the amount SBA can disburse without requiring collateral under the MREIDL program. Reservist families have already sacrificed enough when a family member goes away to serve their country and when their business is harmed as a result. This loan program would allow reservist dependent businesses to access the capital they need to stay afloat without having to sacrifice beyond the service of the key employees. In order to give reservists time to repay the loans, the non-collaterized loan created in this bill would not accumulate interest or require payments for one year or until after the deployment ends, whichever is longer. There are two more provisions which will help this Nation's service members. One section of the bill will require the SBA to give priority to MREIDL loans during loan processing. Another provision will give activated servicemembers an extension of any SBA time limitations equal to the time spent on active duty. This will make it easier for service members to serve their country while continuing to meet their obligations at home. Lastly, this bill calls for two reports. One report will look at the needs of service-disabled veterans who are interested in becoming entrepreneurs. As a result of the war on terror and improved medicine, we are seeing more service-disabled veterans than we have seen in decades. For some service-disabled veterans, entrepreneurship is the best or only way of achieving economic independence. Therefore, it is essential that we understand and take steps to address the needs of the service-disabled veteran entrepreneur or small business owner. This bill also calls for a study to investigate how to improve relations between reservists and their employers. In January, the committee heard that recent changes by the Department of Defense to policies regulating the length and frequency of reservist deployments is harming the ability of reservists to find jobs and the ability of small business owners to continue hiring them. Understanding more about this issue is important and essential to making sure that policymakers can continue to support citizen soldiers and the small businesses that employ them. The bill also includes a number of other important provisions that were added by the House. For instance, this bill includes language directing the Office of Veterans Business Develop to increase the number of Veterans Business Outreach Centers and requires them to improve their participation in the Transition Assistance Program. This bill also creates a program reducing 7(a) loan fees for veterans, improves Small Business Development Centers outreach to the veteran community and instructs the Associate Administrator of the Office of Veterans Business Development to create and disseminate information aimed at informing women veterans about the resources available to them. I am pleased that the House and Senate were able to come to an agreement on these provisions. Veterans possess great technical skills and valuable leadership experience, but they require financial resources and small business training to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. We owe veterans and reservists more than a simple thank you for their service. The least we can do is provide critical resources to help them start and grow small business and to hold Federal agencies accountable. That is what our bill does.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while we are facing new difficulties in the mortgage and subprime markets, we cannot forget the ongoing and deepening crisis that affordable rental housing presents for our Nation. Long-term changes in the housing market have dramatically limited the availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have severely increased the cost of rental housing that remains. As a result, more and more families are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. In 2005, a record 37.3 million households paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, according to the Nation's Housing 2007 Report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Approximately 17 million families paid more than half of their incomes on housing costs. This is unacceptable. Our Nation must act to ease this rental housing crisis by producing more affordable housing options. We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing and the impact it is having on families and children around the country. I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path--one that insures that all Americans, especially our poorest children, have the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing. Housing construction is a critical part of our economy. Unfortunately, just yesterday the Commerce Department reported that construction of new homes dropped by 5.5 percent last month, the lowest level since April 1991. The overall construction decline left home building 24.2 percent below the level of activity a year ago. Residential construction has seen the largest share of job losses, more than 192,000 since March 2006. The question is, what do we do today to face--and to finance--this mounting challenge? In September 2000, I wrote and introduced the original National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation. Today, along with Senator Snowe, I am again proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund and begin a rental housing production program. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5 million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long- term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. Sixty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to participating local jurisdictions. Forty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to States, Indian Tribes and insular areas. A proportionate amount of funds to the States must go to rural areas. If the total amount available for the Trust Fund is less than $2 billion, then there is a $750,000 minimum funding threshold for local jurisdictions. All funding from the Trust Fund must be used for low-income families, defined as those families with incomes below 80 percent of the State or local median income. However, if the funding for the trust fund is less than $2 billion for any year, then the income ceiling is reduced to 60 percent of local median income. The funding from the Trust Fund can be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, preservation incentives, and operating assistance to ease the affordable housing crisis. Funds can also be used for downpayment and closing cost assistance by first time homebuyers. The Trust Fund will be funded through amounts transferred from the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation under Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. It will also be funded through any amounts appropriated under the authorization in the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, relating to the use of FHA savings for an affordable housing grant program. Finally, the Trust Fund will be funded through any amounts as are or may be appropriated, transferred or credited to such fund under any other provisions of law. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation, introduced by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund by a 264-148 vote. It has been endorsed by more than 5,700 community organizations led by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition and including the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, Children's Defense Fund, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Coalition for the Homeless, and others. I am pleased that Senator Reed, within the Government Sponsored Enterprise Mission Improvement Act, included legislative language within the Affordable Housing Block Grant section to provide grants to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Enacting the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will help reverse the recent declines in housing jobs, starts, permits and construction in every State. It will help small businesses across the Nation continue to produce the jobs that are critical to our economic security today and in the future. During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available to working families. The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. In 2005, one in seven households was considered to be ``severely housing cost burdened.'' For too many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately owned rental housing is simply out of reach. Today, working families in this country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, in Massachusetts, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is almost $1,200 per month. In order to afford this apartment without paying more than 30 percent of income on housing, a household must earn over $47,000 per year. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment. The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in the cost of rental housing. Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing. At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing, there has been a significant decrease in the number of affordable rental housing units. According to Real Capital Analytics, the number of rentals in larger multifamily properties converted to for-sale units jumped from just a few thousand in 2003 to 235,000 in 2005. New construction of multifamily buildings intended for rental use dipped from 262,000 units in 2003 to 184,000 in 2006. Simultaneously, the number of renter households increased by 1.2 million. The decline in affordable rental units has already forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing units that accept vouchers. The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We need to enact the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to jumpstart the production of affordable housing in the U.S. Decent housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance over the past generation has helped millions of low-income children across the Nation and has helped in developing stable home environments. However, changes in the housing market clearly show that we need to take additional steps to both produce and maintain affordable housing units. Otherwise, many more children and their families will live in substandard housing or will become homeless. These children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be productive citizens. They deserve our best efforts and require our help. I ask all Senators to support the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, while we are facing new difficulties in the mortgage and subprime markets, we cannot forget the ongoing and deepening crisis that affordable rental housing presents for our Nation. Long-term changes in the housing market have dramatically limited the availability of affordable rental housing across the country and have severely increased the cost of rental housing that remains. As a result, more and more families are forced to pay more than 50 percent of their income for housing. In 2005, a record 37.3 million households paid more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs, according to the Nation's Housing 2007 Report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard University. Approximately 17 million families paid more than half of their incomes on housing costs. This is unacceptable. Our Nation must act to ease this rental housing crisis by producing more affordable housing options. We can no longer ignore the lack of affordable housing and the impact it is having on families and children around the country. I believe it is time for our Nation to take a new path--one that insures that all Americans, especially our poorest children, have the opportunity to live in decent and safe housing. Housing construction is a critical part of our economy. Unfortunately, just yesterday the Commerce Department reported that construction of new homes dropped by 5.5 percent last month, the lowest level since April 1991. The overall construction decline left home building 24.2 percent below the level of activity a year ago. Residential construction has seen the largest share of job losses, more than 192,000 since March 2006. The question is, what do we do today to face--and to finance--this mounting challenge? In September 2000, I wrote and introduced the original National Affordable Housing Trust Fund legislation. Today, along with Senator Snowe, I am again proposing to address the severe shortage of affordable housing by introducing legislation that will establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund and begin a rental housing production program. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund that is established in this legislation would create a production program that will ensure 1.5 million new rental units are built over the next 10 years for extremely low-income families and working families. The goal is to create long- term affordable, mixed-income developments in areas with the greatest opportunities for low-income families. Sixty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to participating local jurisdictions. Forty percent of Trust Fund assistance will be awarded to States, Indian Tribes and insular areas. A proportionate amount of funds to the States must go to rural areas. If the total amount available for the Trust Fund is less than $2 billion, then there is a $750,000 minimum funding threshold for local jurisdictions. All funding from the Trust Fund must be used for low-income families, defined as those families with incomes below 80 percent of the State or local median income. However, if the funding for the trust fund is less than $2 billion for any year, then the income ceiling is reduced to 60 percent of local median income. The funding from the Trust Fund can be used for construction, rehabilitation, acquisition, preservation incentives, and operating assistance to ease the affordable housing crisis. Funds can also be used for downpayment and closing cost assistance by first time homebuyers. The Trust Fund will be funded through amounts transferred from the Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation under Title XIII of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992. It will also be funded through any amounts appropriated under the authorization in the Expanding American Homeownership Act of 2007, relating to the use of FHA savings for an affordable housing grant program. Finally, the Trust Fund will be funded through any amounts as are or may be appropriated, transferred or credited to such fund under any other provisions of law. The National Affordable Housing Trust Fund bill is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Senators. Earlier this year, the House of Representatives passed legislation, introduced by House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund by a 264-148 vote. It has been endorsed by more than 5,700 community organizations led by the National Low-Income Housing Coalition and including the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Home Builders, Children's Defense Fund, U.S. Conference of Mayors, National Coalition for the Homeless, and others. I am pleased that Senator Reed, within the Government Sponsored Enterprise Mission Improvement Act, included legislative language within the Affordable Housing Block Grant section to provide grants to an Affordable Housing Trust Fund. Enacting the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund will help reverse the recent declines in housing jobs, starts, permits and construction in every State. It will help small businesses across the Nation continue to produce the jobs that are critical to our economic security today and in the future. During this time of rising rents, increased housing costs, and the loss of affordable housing units, it is incomprehensible that we are not doing more to increase the amount of housing assistance available to working families. The need for affordable housing is severe. Many working families have been unable to keep up with the increase in housing costs. In 2005, one in seven households was considered to be ``severely housing cost burdened.'' For too many low-income families and their children, the cost of privately owned rental housing is simply out of reach. Today, working families in this country increasingly find themselves unable to afford housing. According to the National Low-Income Housing Coalition, in Massachusetts, the fair market rent for a two-bedroom apartment is almost $1,200 per month. In order to afford this apartment without paying more than 30 percent of income on housing, a household must earn over $47,000 per year. This means teachers, janitors, social workers, police officers and other full-time workers are having trouble affording even a modest two-bedroom apartment. The cost of rental housing keeps going up. According to the Consumer Price Index, CPI, contract rents began to rise above the rate of inflation in 1997 and have continued every year since. Rental costs have outpaced renter income gains for households across the board. Low wage workers have been hardest hit by the increase in the cost of rental housing. Because of the lack of affordable housing, too many families are forced to live in substandard living conditions putting their children at risk. Children living in substandard housing are more likely to experience violence, hunger, lead poisoning and to suffer from infectious diseases such as asthma. They are more likely to have difficulties learning and more likely to fall behind in school. Our Nation's children depend upon access to affordable rental housing. At the same time the cost of rental housing has been increasing, there has been a significant decrease in the number of affordable rental housing units. According to Real Capital Analytics, the number of rentals in larger multifamily properties converted to for-sale units jumped from just a few thousand in 2003 to 235,000 in 2005. New construction of multifamily buildings intended for rental use dipped from 262,000 units in 2003 to 184,000 in 2006. Simultaneously, the number of renter households increased by 1.2 million. The decline in affordable rental units has already forced many working families eligible for Section 8 vouchers in Boston to live outside the city because there are no available rental housing units that accept vouchers. The loss of affordable housing has exacerbated the housing crisis in this country, and the Federal Government must take action. We need to enact the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to jumpstart the production of affordable housing in the U.S. Decent housing, along with neighborhood and living environment, play enormous roles in shaping young lives. Federal housing assistance over the past generation has helped millions of low-income children across the Nation and has helped in developing stable home environments. However, changes in the housing market clearly show that we need to take additional steps to both produce and maintain affordable housing units. Otherwise, many more children and their families will live in substandard housing or will become homeless. These children are less likely to do well in school and less likely to be productive citizens. They deserve our best efforts and require our help. I ask all Senators to support the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feingold amendment because the strategy it mandates gives us the best chance to succeed in Iraq and strengthen America's security around the world. In fact, recent developments in Iraq and Afghanistan have made it clear that this amendment is as important now as it was when Senator Feingold and I first introduced a similar measure a year and half ago. I have heard the arguments that the escalation has worked, that we no longer need to change the mission, and that we are now on the path to victory in Iraq. Every one of us agrees that the troops in Iraq have done an extraordinary job under unbelievably difficult circumstances. The entire country owes them a profound debt of gratitude for their incredible sacrifices. But we must not lose sight of the bigger picture, which is that the brave men and women of our armed forces no matter how heroically they perform cannot end an Iraqi civil war. Every one of our generals, the Secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State have all told us repeatedly that there is simply no military solution to this conflict. The President himself has acknowledged as much and that is why he made clear that the purpose of the escalation was to give the Iraqis one last opportunity to make the tough political compromises that are the only hope for bringing lasting stability to Iraq. But the bottom line is that we have not seen any political progress from the Maliki government since the escalation began nearly one year ago. Not one single additional political benchmark has been met and by some accounts they are even further away from compromising than they have ever been. So when we assess progress in Iraq over the past few months, let's be clear: by the measure that ultimately counts the most political reconciliation this strategy has not accomplished the goal that the President himself established. The reason is simple: the Iraqi government has proven time and again that without a deadline they will not make the tough compromises necessary to bring about a political solution that is the only solution. And as long as we continue to follow the same course of giving them an open-ended commitment, they will continue to pursue their narrow sectarian interests while our troops continue to pay the ultimate price. To succeed over the long term in Iraq, we must change course. We must insist on a strategy that honors what our troops have accomplished and force the Iraqis to finally take advantage of the opportunity they have before them. That's what the Feingold amendment does. It changes the mission to one that can be sustained even as we draw down troops to pre-surge levels which our overstretched military requires us to do: training Iraqi security forces, conducting targeted counter-terrorism missions, and protecting U.S. forces and facilities. And most importantly, it sets the deadline we need to create the leverage necessary to bring about real political reconciliation. In fact, if you look closely at what has occurred over the past few months in Iraq, it is clear that a significant amount of the progress we have seen in terms of reducing violence has been the result of political decisions. That's not to understate the key role our troops have played it's simply to recognize the realities of this type of counterinsurgency mission. We all know that the Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province made a calculated decision, based on their own self-interest, to turn against al-Qaida in fact, many of us have argued for some time the Iraqis themselves would never tolerate foreign extremists in their midst. We also know that one of the key factors in reducing the violence has been the decision by Moktada al-Sadr to tell his Mahdi militia to stand down--at least temporarily. This was reportedly due, at least in part, to a request Prime Minister Maliki made of Iran in August to help rein in the Shia militias. In fact, according to the New York Times, spokesmen for our own military ``have gone out of their way to publicly acknowledge Iran's role in helping to slow the flow of weapons into the country.'' And finally, we know that the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq from Syria has diminished considerably at a time when we have finally begun some level of diplomatic engagement with Syria. So we must learn the right lessons from the positive developments we have seen over the last few months and recognize that the way forward, the best chance for lasting progress, is through political and diplomatic efforts. We must act now to take advantage of the window our troops have provided. I applaud the summits that have been held on Iraq in Sharm el Sheikh and Istanbul, but we need to see much more sustained, hands-on engagement at the highest levels of the administration. And we need a deadline to fundamentally change the dynamic for Iraq's political leaders. The alternative is to continue giving the President a blank check which is exactly what the McConnell amendment does. There's no requirement to transition the mission, and no deadline to leverage political process. And there's no relief for a military stretched to the breaking point. That will not resolve the sectarian divisions that have fed this civil war, it will not bring longterm stability to Iraq, and it will not protect our national security interests around the world. Nowhere is that more important than in Afghanistan, where the same killers who attacked us on 9/11 are right where we left them, plotting more attacks on our homeland. The simple fact is that because of the attention, energy, and resources we have devoted to Iraq, we're now in danger of losing Afghanistan. The Taliban and al-Qaida have regrouped along the Afghan-Pakistan border, currently hold large swathes of territory, and are expanding their reach into regions that haven't seen the Taliban since 2001. Violence may be down in Iraq, but it's at its highest levels in Afghanistan since the invasion. Opium cultivation has soared to 93 percent of the world's market. Reconstruction efforts have stalled, and Oxfam International is reporting ``humanitarian conditions rarely seen outside sub-Saharan Africa.'' That is why Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen called for more troops, equipment, and a strategic plan to get it right in Afghanistan last week. But because we have expended valuable American blood and treasure in Iraq and allowed our focus to wander from our top national security priority, the resources just aren't there to fight Taliban and al-Qaida in Afghanistan. If we change the mission in Iraq and return our focus to Afghanistan, we still have time to achieve the stable democracy we promised. But we must act now. In Iraq and in Afghanistan, time is not on our side. We must seize this moment to put America on course to a safer and more secure future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2448 as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee because I believe that we should instead be taking up on the Senate floor the far better bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee. Congress has a duty to protect the American people--and to protect the Constitution. That is the oath we take. It is a solemn pledge, and in my judgment the Judiciary Committee bill better reflects the oath we each swear to uphold. Why? The Judiciary Committee's bill gives the President the added flexibility he needs to hunt and capture terrorists who would strike our homeland--but it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the privacy rights of American citizens and providing the President adequate tools to fight international terrorism. This is no small issue. It is the job of Congress to find the right balance between protecting privacy and safeguarding national security. The judiciary bill makes critical improvements to the Protect America Act to ensure independent judicial oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC. It allows the secret FISC greater authority to act as an independent check on unfettered Executive power. The judiciary bill provides the court the authority to assess the Government's ongoing compliance with its wiretapping procedures, places limits on the way the Government uses information acquired about Americans, and lets the court enforce its own orders. The judiciary bill also safeguards Americans against widespread warrantless spying. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive statutory authority for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, prohibits limitless ``fishing expeditions''--so-called ``bulk collection'' of all communications between the United States and overseas, and ensures that the Government cannot eavesdrop on Americans under the guise of targeting foreigners--what is known as ``reverse targeting.'' Most importantly, unlike the Intelligence bill, the judiciary bill does not provide retroactive amnesty to telecommunications providers that were complicit in the administration's warrantless spying program. I fear this administration is deliberately stonewalling to avoid an adverse court decision finding its surveillance program to be unconstitutional. It is seeking political security in the name of national security. The heart of the matter is that allowing Americans their day in court--introducing some kind of accountability, affording some kind of objective authority, in lieu of the Bush administration, to adjudicate competing claims--will shed much-needed light on the administration's secret surveillance program. If the lawsuits are shielded by Congress, the courts may never rule on whether the administration's surveillance activities were lawful. We must hold the administration to account. And an impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing. If the telecoms were following the law, they should get immunity, as Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our courts should decide, not Congress--and that is a matter of principle protected in the judiciary bill, which is the bipartisan bill that should be under consideration.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, seven thousand Americans die every year because of preventable adverse drug events. Tens of thousands of more are injured. Meanwhile, of the three billion prescriptions that are written each year, doctors report that nearly one billion of them required a followup for clarity, costing our health care system billions of dollars a year. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Ensign, Senator Stabenow and Senator Martinez to introduce critical legislation to help bring our health care system into the 21st century through electronic prescribing, e-prescribing, of medications in the Medicare program. The benefits of e-prescribing are clear and compelling. When a doctor ``writes'' an electronic prescription, a computer or handheld device warns of potentially dangerous interactions or allergies or informs a physician whether a particular drug is covered by a patient's insurance. It also tells the physician whether a chemically identical generic alternative is available at a fraction of the price. The path to a more modern, accountable health care system starts with health information technology. The path to robust health information technology starts with e-prescribing. This legislation would provide permanent funding for physician payment bonuses in Medicare to help offset the costs of acquiring e- prescribing systems and to incentivize the use of the technology. The bill would also require all physicians in Medicare to use e-prescribing starting in 2011--1 year later than the Institute of Medicine recommended in their recent study. We have talked long enough about using technology to stem perpetually rising health care costs and poor quality, and our legislation takes an important step to do something about it. I want to give particular credit to Mark Merritt and his team at Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, PCMA, for their hard work and leadership. PCMA is responsible for a seminal study in this field, which showed for the first time that broader adoption of e-prescribing will not only save lives, but will also save billions of dollars for patients, payers and taxpayers alike. Perhaps most importantly, PCMA created a strong and diverse coalition of health care stakeholders to advocate for this legislation, including business, labor, consumer advocates, physicians, health plans, pharmacists, and drug manufacturers. The PCMA-led coalition has worked diligently on Capitol Hill in support of this important issue. They have educated Congress on e-prescribing and are helping to make sure that we get the policy right. The Medicare E-MEDS Act gets it right. The standards and interoperability for e-prescribing are in place; the technology is affordable; and, most importantly, the dramatic benefits for patients and health care purchasers--especially the Federal Government--are overwhelmingly clear. This bill is a solid step towards addressing these important issues in the delivery of our Nation's health care. It is time that Congress act to save lives and increase efficiency in America's health care system. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate tried to call up and pass an amended version of S. 1662, the Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007. There was objection to the bill based on a concern that it reauthorized the SBA's Small Business Investment Company Participating Securities program, a program which the Office of Management and Budget has predicted will have losses of about $3 billion. The amendment pending before the full Senate does not reauthorize the SBIC Participating Securities program. That provision was taken out of the bill in October when the committee first circulated the proposed amendment to colleagues and the parties notified their members that the committee would like to pass the bill by unanimous consent. Equity financing like the SBIC Participating Securities program is important to the continuum of small business financing, and testimony before our committee this summer emphasized the need for a reformed program to fill the void left by the private sector. However, as the report to S. 1662 clarifies, Congress could not find common ground with the administration on reforming the program and so the committee included a token reauthorization amount to signal to the business community that it understood the need for small equity investments and that there was support for the Small Business Investment Company program in general. The bill reauthorizes through 2010 the Small Business Investment Company Debenture program, and the New Markets Venture Capital program. Venture capital is a critical driver of our economy and job creation. Since the creation of the SBIC program almost 50 years ago, the country has benefited from hundreds of thousands of jobs. Some examples of success stories include businesses that are now household names-- Calaway Golf, Intel, Jenny Craig, Outback Steakhouse, and Federal Express. Through the SBA's New Markets Venture Capital program, which has only been making investments for a couple of years, businesses in areas with the highest national employment, such as in the Appalachia region of Kentucky, have gotten access to more than $48 million in patient investment capital and created hundreds of jobs with sustainable wages and health care benefits. Senator Snowe and I worked with the SBA in drafting S. 1662, and the committee of jurisdiction adopted it unanimously--by a vote of 19 to 0. Further, we understand concerns about moving legislation last minute and we try to avoid that. In this case, our committee voted out this bill in June, giving colleagues with concerns more than 5 months to review the legislation. And in anticipation of moving this bill by unanimous consent committee staff reached out to other offices in October. We have tried for 6 weeks to discuss the bill and identify any possible concerns. We gave those offices copies of the bill, the report, the CBO cost estimate, explained what was in the amendment to be hotlined, and provided a copy of the revised CBO cost estimate that reflected striking the section that reauthorized the SBIC participating securities program and the section that triggered direct spending. The bill has a very modest cost, reduces the historic authorization levels, and has the potential to have a very positive impact on the economy, through investment and job creation. We would be happy to work with our colleagues to try and clarify any other misunderstandings and to work through any substantive concerns. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the amendment be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, seven thousand Americans die every year because of preventable adverse drug events. Tens of thousands of more are injured. Meanwhile, of the three billion prescriptions that are written each year, doctors report that nearly one billion of them required a followup for clarity, costing our health care system billions of dollars a year. That is why I am pleased to join my colleagues Senator Ensign, Senator Stabenow and Senator Martinez to introduce critical legislation to help bring our health care system into the 21st century through electronic prescribing, e-prescribing, of medications in the Medicare program. The benefits of e-prescribing are clear and compelling. When a doctor ``writes'' an electronic prescription, a computer or handheld device warns of potentially dangerous interactions or allergies or informs a physician whether a particular drug is covered by a patient's insurance. It also tells the physician whether a chemically identical generic alternative is available at a fraction of the price. The path to a more modern, accountable health care system starts with health information technology. The path to robust health information technology starts with e-prescribing. This legislation would provide permanent funding for physician payment bonuses in Medicare to help offset the costs of acquiring e- prescribing systems and to incentivize the use of the technology. The bill would also require all physicians in Medicare to use e-prescribing starting in 2011--1 year later than the Institute of Medicine recommended in their recent study. We have talked long enough about using technology to stem perpetually rising health care costs and poor quality, and our legislation takes an important step to do something about it. I want to give particular credit to Mark Merritt and his team at Pharmaceutical Care Management Association, PCMA, for their hard work and leadership. PCMA is responsible for a seminal study in this field, which showed for the first time that broader adoption of e-prescribing will not only save lives, but will also save billions of dollars for patients, payers and taxpayers alike. Perhaps most importantly, PCMA created a strong and diverse coalition of health care stakeholders to advocate for this legislation, including business, labor, consumer advocates, physicians, health plans, pharmacists, and drug manufacturers. The PCMA-led coalition has worked diligently on Capitol Hill in support of this important issue. They have educated Congress on e-prescribing and are helping to make sure that we get the policy right. The Medicare E-MEDS Act gets it right. The standards and interoperability for e-prescribing are in place; the technology is affordable; and, most importantly, the dramatic benefits for patients and health care purchasers--especially the Federal Government--are overwhelmingly clear. This bill is a solid step towards addressing these important issues in the delivery of our Nation's health care. It is time that Congress act to save lives and increase efficiency in America's health care system. Mr. President, I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Senate voted to approve H.R. 3688, the United States-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act. In July of 2006, I opposed this agreement when it came before the Senate Finance Committee because it lacked enforceable labor standards--standards that Peru's President Alejandro Toledo indicated a willingness to support. What a difference a year makes. As a result of a landmark bipartisan agreement reached in May of this year, and for the first time ever in a free trade agreement, our agreement with Peru encompasses meaningful and enforceable labor and environmental protections. The labor chapter of the agreement requires both the United States and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the five core standards incorporated in the 1998 ILO Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work: (1) the right to organize; (2) the right to bargain collectively; (3) prohibitions on forced labor; (4) protections for child labor; and (5) freedom from employment discrimination. The environmental chapter requires both the United States and Peru to adopt and maintain domestic laws to implement the obligations in seven multilateral environmental agreements to which both the United States and Peru are parties. I have long championed the inclusion of enforceable labor and environmental standards in free trade agreements, and I supported the agreement today because of these chapters. It is imperative that our trading partners be held to high labor and environmental standards, and I would not stand in support of this agreement had these provisions not been included. The Peru Free Trade Agreement is a landmark achievement that makes these provisions fully enforceable--subjecting these provisions to the same dispute resolution system that applies to the commercial provisions of the agreement. I urge the President, along with the office of the U.S. Trade Representative, to hold Peru's government accountable to these provisions. By ensuring that these standards are fully enforced, the President can solidify this agreement with Peru as a model for dealing with future trading partners.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``SBA Lender Oversight: Preventing Loan Fraud and Improving Regulation of Lenders,'' on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a public markup of S. 2300, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007, on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to be introducing legislation, the Small Business Contracting Revitalization Act of 2007, designed to protect the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. As the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have focused a considerable amount of energy promoting the interests of small businesses in the Federal marketplace. The legislation that we are introducing today marks a critical step forward in this process. It is no secret that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship places a great deal of importance on moving legislation forward in a bipartisan manner, the members of my Committee understand we represent the interests of all of our Nation's small businesses, the most important and dynamic segment of our economy. And nowhere is the bipartisan consensus stronger than in the area of Federal procurement and ensuring that our Nation's small businesses receive their fair share of procurement opportunities. I am pleased to once again be introducing bipartisan legislation with the Committee's ranking member, Senator Olympia Snowe. Regardless of who has chaired the Committee during our tenure together, we have both worked hard to improve small business Federal procurement opportunities. The legislation we are introducing today has one ultimate purpose, to expand opportunities for small businesses to contract with the Federal government. And the reality is that small businesses need all the help they can get with respect to accessing the Federal marketplace. In fiscal year 2006 according to Eagle Eye Publishing, the Federal Government missed its 23 percent contracting goal by 3 percent. That 3 percent represents more than $12 billion in lost contracting dollars for small businesses. Service-disabled veterans fared the worst when it came to Federal contracting with only 0.87 percent of Federal dollars going to their firms. Women-owned firms only took in 2.57 percent of Federal dollars while they make up more than 30 percent of all privately held firms. Minority-owned firms continue to face barriers to Federal contracting. The SDB and 8(a) program only accounted for 6.75 percent of Federal contracting. These numbers tell the stark story of why this legislation is so important. If small business is the engine that drives our economy when it comes to Federal procurement that engine needs an overhaul. Our bill looks to make that overhaul as we look at making improvements in five key areas. The first area we attempt to make improvements in is the area of contract bundling. Although contracting bundling may have started out as a good idea it has now become the prime example of the old saying that too much of a good thing can be very, very bad. The proliferation of bundled contracts coupled with a decimation of contracting professionals within the Government threatens to kill small businesses' ability to compete for Federal contracts. In our hearing on July 18, 2007, on contracting, we heard testimony about the damage to opportunities for small businesses because of the lack of oversight and contract bundling. Our bill looks to address those issues by ensuring: accountability of senior agency management for all incidents of bundling; timely and accurate reporting of contract bundling information by all Federal agencies; and improved oversight of bundling regulation compliance by the Small Business Administration. The bill also ensures that contract consolidation decisions made by a department or agency, other than the Defense Department and its agencies, provide small businesses with appropriate opportunities to participate as prime contractors and subcontractors. The second area that this bill attempts to address is subcontracting. The Committee heard in the July 18 hearing and in a May 22, 2007, hearing on minority business about the challenges that many small business subcontractors face when dealing with prime contractors. Witnesses related that the way subcontracting compliance is calculated creates opportunity for abuse. They also related that many small businesses will spend time, money and effort preparing bid proposals to be a part of a bid team and that once the contract is won they never hear from the prime contractor again. Many also complain about lack of timely payments after they have completed work. This bill attempts to deal with some of these issues by including provisions designed to prevent misrepresentations in subcontracting by prime contractors. To accomplish this, the bill: provides guidelines and procedures for reviewing and evaluating subcontractor participation in prime contracts; authorizes agency pilot programs that will grant contractual incentives to prime contractors who exceed their small business goals; and requires prime contractors who fail to comply with subcontracting plans to fund mentor-protege assistance programs for small businesses. The third area that our legislation attempts to address is the updating of the socioeconomic programs administered by the SBA. In our first hearing of the year on January 31, 2007, we heard veterans with service connected disabilities speak about the difficulty that they are having accessing the Federal marketplace. It is clear that the Government is not doing enough. In fiscal year 2006, service-disabled veteran-owned businesses only got 0.87 percent of all Federal procurement--well short of the 3 percent statutory goal. Our bill will assist service-disabled veteran-owned small businesses in obtaining Government contract and subcontract opportunities by expanding the authority for sole-source awards to SDV firms. In addition, the bill will allow: the surviving spouse of a service- disabled veteran to retain the business's SDV designation for up to 10 years following the veteran's death; the SBA to accept SDV firm certifications from the Department of Veterans Affairs; and the establishment of an SDV mentor-protege program by the SBA. Our veterans are returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, and we owe it to them to give them every opportunity at fulfilling the dream of entrepreneurship. We heard from women business owners in our September 20, 2007, hearing, on women's entrepreneurship that the time has come to implement the women's procurement program. The administration has continually postponed implementing a women's procurement program that became law 7 years ago. This bill tells SBA to get it done within 90 days. Another program sorely needing our attention is the 8(a) program. This program was created to assist socially and economically disadvantaged small businesses, but, as we heard during the May 22, 2007, hearing, the financial threshold for inclusion in the program is out-dated and too restrictive. The net-worth thresholds have not been updated since 1989. This bill allows for an inflationary adjustment to be made to the threshold and it excludes qualified retirement accounts from consideration while calculating the threshold so that businesses that belong in this program won't be shut out. This bill also makes a number of changes to the HUBZone program. The bill would expand HUBZones to areas adjacent to military installations affected by BRAC. It will also make other changes that will expand the HUBZone program to subcontracting as well as creating a mentor protege program. I understand the stated goal of this program is to develop areas of poverty through government contracting. And while I agree that this is a laudable goal I also remember the controversy that surrounded the creation of this program in 1996. I am keenly aware that the HUBZone program was created to supplant race-conscious programs like 8(a) and the small disadvantaged business program. I fought hard to preserve those programs then and I will continue to preserve and strengthen those programs in the future. In the interests of moving this bill forward and improving all of the programs I have agreed to include these priorities for Ranking Member Snowe. I look forward to working with her to move the priorities that are important to all of the socio-economic groups in this legislation. The fourth area that we intend to update is the acquisition process. This bill aims to increase the number of small business contracting opportunities by including additional provisions to reduce bundled contracts and by reserving more contracts for small business concerns. The bill accomplishes this by: authorizing small business set-asides in multiple-award, multi-agency contracting vehicles; and requiring that agencies include advance plans on small business spending in their budgets and submit a report describing the impact of each bundled contract awarded by an agency. The bill also directs the SBA to annually report to Congress on small business participation in overseas Government contracts. The last area that we tackle in this legislation is small business size and status integrity. The Committee has heard from a number of small businesses about large businesses parading as small businesses. During our July hearing we looked at the list of the top 25 small businesses doing Federal contracting. On that list at least six clearly recognizable multi-billion dollar corporations were among the top 25 small businesses listed including SAIC at number two. I have been adamant that small business contracts must go to small businesses. Small businesses are losing billions of dollars in opportunities because of these size standard loopholes. This bill attempts to address these issues by adding a new section, Sec. 38, to the Small Business Act that is designed to strengthen the Government's ability to enforce the size and status standards for small business certification. To achieve this, the new section establishes procedures for protests, through the SBA, of small business set-aside awards made to large businesses; requires the development of training programs for small business size standards; requires a government-wide policy on prosecutions of size and status fraud; and requires a detailed review of the size standards for small businesses by the SBA within 1 year. In closing, I want to reiterate that this has been a truly bi- partisan effort and we look forward to working with the rest of the Senate as we move this legislation forward. It is well past time to provide greater opportunities for the thousands of small business owners who wish to do business with the Federal government. I believe that this legislation is a good step toward opening those doors of opportunity. I hope all of my colleagues will join us in supporting this bill Mr. President, ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.