John Kerry

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.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is hard to believe that today marks 5 years since an extraordinarily frigid and raining, tough day in October when we were stunned to hear the reports of the missing plane and then reports that it carried our friend, Senator Wellstone, his wife Sheila, and his daughter Marcia. I had just been with him in Minnesota hours earlier where his wife and he campaigned. It was one of the moments you never forget. I remember feeling the awful, vivid contrasts of a world transformed. October 25, our friend and colleague was gone--but October 24 he had been right there with us full of life. I was in the Twin Cities at Sam Kaplan's house at a Wellstone campaign event with Paul's wife, Sheila. Paul was campaigning on the other side of the State, but he called into the event, and I will never forget what it was like to hear that voice over the speaker phone--loud, clear, strong--Paul Wellstone, that voice full of passion and commitment. It was a sad and sickening feeling to hear the next day that both of them were gone. In the last 5 years, I can't tell you how many times how many of us, in tough fights and lonely stands, have wished we had Paul Wellstone in our corner here on the floor of the Senate. Paul and Sheila Wellstone were an extraordinary couple. They were the best people in politics and in life--the most caring, the most giving, the most sincere and genuine people I have ever met or will ever meet. Paul was the Pied Piper of modern politics--so many people heard him and wanted to follow him in his fight. Joyful, rumpled, the genuine article--we all admired Paul for his energy and his independence, his spirit and his zest for making people's lives better and inspiring others to do the same. It is impossible to measure the number of lives Paul touched. So many people who never even knew him are better off because of him. When I ran for President in 2004, at rope lines around the country, people would come up to me after rallies--people in wheelchairs, people with cancer, veterans, senior citizens, farmers--and they would place in my palm that familiar, cherished Wellstone button, or one of those green ribbons lovingly created after Paul passed away. These were talismans. Words didn't need to be spoken--you could see it in their eyes, you could see how much he meant--even 2 years later, he was still their champion, he was still their voice. Right in front of my eyes, in their faces, I could see the legacy of a man who lived Hubert Humphrey's credo: ``The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy and the handicapped.'' Paul's politics was a moral politics. To all the people who worked for him, who loved him, he was never Senator Wellstone, or ``the Senator''--he was just Paul, and Paul Wellstone wouldn't have had it any other way. He was the champion in the Senate for issues that some people didn't think were politically popular--the Hmong in Minnesota, Native Americans on the reservations, the poor, children, stopping drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve thousands of miles from his home. I still remember after our victory on that filibuster, the image of Paul walking into the rally-- limping--his back hurting from a condition that caused him pain right to the end, absolutely unbowed, the look on his face was pure joy--the exuberance of having succeeded at doing something because it was the right thing to do. He understood that values had to be not just spoken but actually lived. As he said: Politics is what we do. Politics is what we do, politics is what we create, by what we work for, by what we hope for and what we dare to imagine. I will never forget, 3 years ago, standing next to Bruce Springsteen, at rallies of 50,000, 60,000, 80,000 people--in Madison, WI, and Cleveland, OH--people standing in the chill and the rain and the wind-- people who were there because, just like Paul, they loved their country so much they wanted to change it--and I still remember the response-- the tears and the joy and, above all, the hope--when Bruce Springsteen would quote words from Paul that ought to ring true for all of us: The future will not belong to those who sit on the sidelines. The future will not belong to the cynics. The future belongs to those who believe in the beauty of their dreams. Paul and Sheila Wellstone aren't here with us in Washington, but they continue to remind us what we can have if we believe once again in our highest hopes and our strongest ideals. They continue to remind us of what is important--and what is worth fighting for. I want to say for the record today that Paul Wellstone and his politics are much missed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order be delayed so the manager can propose a unanimous consent so that I can offer an amendment.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know we want to and need to break for recess in a moment so I will not be very long at all. I call up amendment No. 3398. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in February of this year, I sent a letter to the inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services regarding a report from the Centers for Disease Control that actually blocked an investigation into the death of six firefighters whose personal safety equipment had failed them between 1998 and the year 2000. In the response to me, the inspector general reported that funding of the current funds that exist in the Firefighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Fund within the National Institutes of Occupational Health and Safety is flat. Their resources are such that they have had to pick and choose where they can conduct those kinds of investigations. Every year, about 100 firefighters die in the line of duty in America and about 87,000 are injured. This fund is an investigative fund that helps find ways in which we can protect firefighter lives--whether there is a certain kind of equipment that might have made a difference or a certain procedure that might have made a difference. Obviously, for those fire stations, fire houses with the losses or those that face a future risk, to know we are selectively choosing where we investigate and where we do not does not do the job. We need to investigate all of those fatalities, and we need to do everything possible to provide our firefighters the procedures and equipment necessary to save lives. This funding will add an additional $2.5 million to that investigative fund and allow us to complete our responsibility to those courageous firefighters across the country. I ask unanimous consent a letter from the International Association of Fire Fighters and the International Association of Fire Chiefs be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I think both sides have now agreed to this amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and the distinguished manager.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to engage the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, HHS, and Education, Mr. Harkin, in a colloquy concerning funding for deafblind services and programs at the Department of Education. Would the chairman and manager of the bill entertain a question?

Mr. KERRY. As the Senator knows, tremendous progress has been made in addressing the needs of deafblind children and their families over the past two decades. Despite a doubling of the population of children who are deafblind over that same time period, the 46 State and regional project centers that support the deafblind community have not had a budget increase in over 20 years. In fiscal year 2007, the national technical assistance and dissemination program at the Department of Education received $48.9 million for all disability technical assistance, of which $12.8 million is designated for deafblind programs and services. At a time when remarkable advances in medicine and technology are enabling many more of these infants and children to survive and live longer, it is important for Congress to recognize the need for increased support. While the President's budget proposed baseline funding for this program, the House included a modest $2 million increase for deafblind programs for fiscal year 2008 in their Department of Education appropriations bill. The equivalent allocation in the Senate was, of course, lower than in the House. I know the chairman recognizes the urgent help our States need to improve their services for families, to support the activities of the national technical assistance and dissemination center on deafblindness, and to strengthen personnel preparation programs. Mr. President, I would ask the chairman if he would be willing to continue to work during the conference process to include a $2 million budget increase for deafblind funding?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for his help on this issue. Family Literacy program

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment which may provide up to $2.5 million in additional funds for the Fire Fighter Fatality Investigation and Prevention Program, contained within the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. The account for this funding is Other Occupational Safety and Health Research. The funding, which can be used across the United States, will be used to allow the agency to more effectively and comprehensibly investigate fire fighter fatalities, so that the cause of fatalities may be identified and future fatalities may be avoided. The inspector general for the Department of Health and Human Services found that flat funding for the program since 1998 has resulted in a reduced number of investigations over time. As a result, NIOSH has to prioritize certain types of investigations. The inspector general concludes that limited resources are a significant constraint which limits the program's effectiveness. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Representative Emanuel and I are introducing the Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 which would put an end to the practice of allowing unlimited amounts of income to be deferred offshore. Recently, it was brought to our attention that U.S. hedge fund managers were deferring millions of dollars of compensation offshore. Less generous deferrals have been used by corporate executives for years. Recent Internal Revenue Service data shows that the richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record. The wealthiest one percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005. At a time when our personal savings rate has reached a 73-year low and CEOs are paid 349 times as much as the average worker and the top twenty-five hedge fund managers earned a total of $14 billion in 2006, we should not be providing a tax advantage to allow income to be deferred offshore and invested on a tax-free basis. Low-income and middle class families who are struggling are the ones who need tax incentives to save for retirement. Taxpayers can defer paying taxes immediately on their compensation, either through ``qualified'' or ``nonqualified'' deferral arrangements. Most taxpayers make qualified deferrals such as contributions to 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, IRAs. Nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements are usually used by senior executives or other high-income taxpayers who want to defer amounts in the excess of the qualified plan or IRA limits. There are no limits on the amount on nonqualified deferred compensation that can be deferred. Offshore nonqualified compensation arrangements have the potential to be more abusive than similar arrangements in the U.S. U.S. companies that grant nonqualified deferred compensation to their employees are unable to receive a tax deduction equal to the deferred compensation until the compensation is paid to the employee. By contrast, offshore employers can locate in no-tax jurisdictions, provide deferred compensation to their U.S. employees, and suffer no economic loss, since the timing of the deduction is not relevant when the employer does not have any tax liability. Accordingly, there is a preference in the Code for U.S. taxpayers to defer compensation in certain offshore jurisdictions: it provides a significant tax benefit, without any tax disincentive/disadvantage to their offshore employer. There is a fundamental difference between middle class Americans who can defer up to $15,500 of income into a 401(k) and $4,000 into their IRAs and higher-income taxpayers who can defer unlimited amounts offshore. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 would eliminate the ability of U.S. taxpayers to defer nonqualified deferred compensation in offshore tax havens. Offshore nonqualified deferred compensation paid by a foreign corporation will be taxable income when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture to the compensation. A substantial risk of forfeiture exists where the receipt of compensation is conditioned upon the future performance of substantial services in order to receive that compensation. Individuals who currently take advantage of such tax planning and who wish to make deferrals would be limited to making deferrals under qualified arrangements which are subject to annual limitations. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 is not intended to prohibit a foreign deferred compensation arrangement if the foreign corporation entering into the arrangement is subject to tax on substantially all of its income and denied an immediate deduction for compensation that is deferred. For purposes of the legislation, a foreign corporation would be any foreign corporation unless substantially all of its income effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S. or is subject to an income tax imposed by a foreign country that has a comprehensive tax treaty with the U.S., and a deduction is allowed for compensation under rules that are substantially similar to the way in which the U.S. provides deductions for compensation. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to determine whether a foreign corporation that operates in a country without a formal tax treaty with the U.S. can qualify for the exemption. There are many different ways to structure an offshore deferral arrangement. A prototypical structure would be an executive who elects to defer his or her year-end bonus in an offshore investment fund for a period of time, typically, 5 to 10 years. The bonus and any associated earnings would not be taxable until the end of the term of the arrangement, assuming it complies with the Code Section 409A requirements. This legislation only affects compensation which is earned, vested, and deferred after 2007. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Act of 2007 only addresses offshore nonqualified deferred compensation because these arrangements have the potential to be more abusive than onshore arrangements. This does meant that I believe that we should not continue to look at limiting all nonqualified deferred compensation. I will continue to work with the Finance Committee on this issue. This legislation will put an end to offshore deferral arrangements being used as unlimited IRAs. I look forward to working will my colleagues to address this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Representative Emanuel and I are introducing the Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 which would put an end to the practice of allowing unlimited amounts of income to be deferred offshore. Recently, it was brought to our attention that U.S. hedge fund managers were deferring millions of dollars of compensation offshore. Less generous deferrals have been used by corporate executives for years. Recent Internal Revenue Service data shows that the richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record. The wealthiest one percent of Americans earned 21.2 percent of all income in 2005. At a time when our personal savings rate has reached a 73-year low and CEOs are paid 349 times as much as the average worker and the top twenty-five hedge fund managers earned a total of $14 billion in 2006, we should not be providing a tax advantage to allow income to be deferred offshore and invested on a tax-free basis. Low-income and middle class families who are struggling are the ones who need tax incentives to save for retirement. Taxpayers can defer paying taxes immediately on their compensation, either through ``qualified'' or ``nonqualified'' deferral arrangements. Most taxpayers make qualified deferrals such as contributions to 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, IRAs. Nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements are usually used by senior executives or other high-income taxpayers who want to defer amounts in the excess of the qualified plan or IRA limits. There are no limits on the amount on nonqualified deferred compensation that can be deferred. Offshore nonqualified compensation arrangements have the potential to be more abusive than similar arrangements in the U.S. U.S. companies that grant nonqualified deferred compensation to their employees are unable to receive a tax deduction equal to the deferred compensation until the compensation is paid to the employee. By contrast, offshore employers can locate in no-tax jurisdictions, provide deferred compensation to their U.S. employees, and suffer no economic loss, since the timing of the deduction is not relevant when the employer does not have any tax liability. Accordingly, there is a preference in the Code for U.S. taxpayers to defer compensation in certain offshore jurisdictions: it provides a significant tax benefit, without any tax disincentive/disadvantage to their offshore employer. There is a fundamental difference between middle class Americans who can defer up to $15,500 of income into a 401(k) and $4,000 into their IRAs and higher-income taxpayers who can defer unlimited amounts offshore. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 would eliminate the ability of U.S. taxpayers to defer nonqualified deferred compensation in offshore tax havens. Offshore nonqualified deferred compensation paid by a foreign corporation will be taxable income when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture to the compensation. A substantial risk of forfeiture exists where the receipt of compensation is conditioned upon the future performance of substantial services in order to receive that compensation. Individuals who currently take advantage of such tax planning and who wish to make deferrals would be limited to making deferrals under qualified arrangements which are subject to annual limitations. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Reform Act of 2007 is not intended to prohibit a foreign deferred compensation arrangement if the foreign corporation entering into the arrangement is subject to tax on substantially all of its income and denied an immediate deduction for compensation that is deferred. For purposes of the legislation, a foreign corporation would be any foreign corporation unless substantially all of its income effectively connected to a trade or business in the U.S. or is subject to an income tax imposed by a foreign country that has a comprehensive tax treaty with the U.S., and a deduction is allowed for compensation under rules that are substantially similar to the way in which the U.S. provides deductions for compensation. In addition, the Secretary of the Treasury is given authority to determine whether a foreign corporation that operates in a country without a formal tax treaty with the U.S. can qualify for the exemption. There are many different ways to structure an offshore deferral arrangement. A prototypical structure would be an executive who elects to defer his or her year-end bonus in an offshore investment fund for a period of time, typically, 5 to 10 years. The bonus and any associated earnings would not be taxable until the end of the term of the arrangement, assuming it complies with the Code Section 409A requirements. This legislation only affects compensation which is earned, vested, and deferred after 2007. The Offshore Deferred Compensation Act of 2007 only addresses offshore nonqualified deferred compensation because these arrangements have the potential to be more abusive than onshore arrangements. This does meant that I believe that we should not continue to look at limiting all nonqualified deferred compensation. I will continue to work with the Finance Committee on this issue. This legislation will put an end to offshore deferral arrangements being used as unlimited IRAs. I look forward to working will my colleagues to address this issue. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, one of the best ways that the United States can gain understanding and appreciation of other cultures is through the arts. Exposing children and adults alike to the creativity of other countries enriches our own artistic talents and helps bridge the gap between nations. It is for those reasons my colleague Senator Hatch and I have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act. This legislation helps streamline the visa process and waive fees so that foreign artists and musicians can share their talents in the United States. Currently, the visa process for visiting artists is slow and costly, often times prohibiting artists from coming to the United States to share their talents. Breaking down these barriers is important and we shouldn't let the politics of immigration interfere with expanding our cultural horizons. I am proud to stand with Senator Hatch and the Performing Arts Visa Task Force to try and help artists visit our country and inspire our communities. I hope our colleagues will join us and pass this sensible reform to expedite cultural exchanges and artistic expression.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, one of the best ways that the United States can gain understanding and appreciation of other cultures is through the arts. Exposing children and adults alike to the creativity of other countries enriches our own artistic talents and helps bridge the gap between nations. It is for those reasons my colleague Senator Hatch and I have introduced the Arts Require Timely Service, ARTS, Act. This legislation helps streamline the visa process and waive fees so that foreign artists and musicians can share their talents in the United States. Currently, the visa process for visiting artists is slow and costly, often times prohibiting artists from coming to the United States to share their talents. Breaking down these barriers is important and we shouldn't let the politics of immigration interfere with expanding our cultural horizons. I am proud to stand with Senator Hatch and the Performing Arts Visa Task Force to try and help artists visit our country and inspire our communities. I hope our colleagues will join us and pass this sensible reform to expedite cultural exchanges and artistic expression.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment with Senator Graham as a cosponsor which may provide up to $2 million, within the Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs account, for the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking, SMART, Office. The funding will be used to help hire additional staff and cover expenses for the office. The SMART Office was created by the Adam Walsh Act to help States change their sex offender registry statutes to come into compliance with the law. Currently, the SMART office is only funded through various discretionary accounts, so it is critical that we ensure they have enough staff and resources to help enforce this important law to protect our communities. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment with Senator Kennedy as a cosponsor which would authorize the Director of the Federal Prison System to carry out a pilot program to assist the children of female prisoners. The pilot program can be developed at any Federal correctional facility that houses women in the United States. Specifically, the amendment gives the Director of the Federal prison system discretion to make expenditures to institute a pilot program for nonviolent female offenders and their children up to age 36 months to allow the children to be housed, fed, and cared for in Federal, or federally contracted, correctional facilities housing women, in programs specifically designed to benefit mother and child.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment which would appropriate the necessary funds to require the Department of Homeland Security to develop a pilot program to test entry document verification technology. This technology allows border agents to quickly check travel document such as drivers' licenses, passports, and visas against a stored database of legitimate domestic and international travel documents. L1 Communications, a company with a plant in Wilmington, MA, is helping produce this technology and would be an eligible company for this funding. The 9/11 Commission Report stated that ``for terrorists, travel documents are as important as weapons.'' The report concluded that ``better technology and training to detect terrorist travel documents are the most important immediate steps to reduce America's vulnerability to clandestine entry.'' It recommended that the Government develop a strategy to thwart terrorist travel that would incorporate better document authentication technology. Unfortunately, the technology that Customs and Border Protection, CBP, uses to authenticate travel documents is no better now than on 9/11. The absence of advanced document authentication technology often forces border agents to eyeball travel documents--a makeshift approach that has proven to be inadequate. In 2006, investigators with the Governmental Accountability Office, GAO, were able to enter the United States from Canada and Mexico by showing CBP agents counterfeit drivers' licenses and an expired, altered U.S. diplomatic passport. The GAO used commercially available computer software to produce its travel documents. Amazingly, the GAO found that it was easier for its investigators to cross into the United States using fake travel documents than during an identical 2003 investigation. The GAO is currently drafting a followup report that will cite automated document authentication technology as a method to improve border security. My amendment requires DHS to develop a pilot program to test automated document authentication technology at various ports of entry within 6 months. This technology is already widely used by domestic agencies, including the Coast Guard, NASA, and the Capitol Police, as well as by foreign governments, such as Australia, Japan, and Sweden. Referring to the 9/11 hijackers, the Commission reported that ``analyzing their characteristic travel documents and travel patterns could have allowed authorities to intercept 4 to 15 hijackers.'' We must not allow another 9/11. At a time when protecting our homeland against terrorists and other illicit actors remains the paramount national security priority, I believe it is critical that we implement this pilot program to test widely available document authentication technology.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I submitted an amendment with Senator Kennedy as a cosponsor which may provide up to $1 million, within the Navy Sealift Account, to the Massachusetts Maritime Academy, MMA, in Buzzards Bay, MA. The funding will be used to help complete the conversion of the T.S. Enterprise, a Ready Reserve Force training ship. In fiscal year 2000-2001, the Department of Defense Appropriations conference report included $25 million for the conversion of the T.S. Enterprise. However, that funding only allowed MARAD to produce a ship which holds only 600 cadets. The Massachusetts Maritime Academy has had a growing number of students in recent years and requires the additional room to allow all of their cadets to train on the ship. At a time when our troops depend heavily on the material shipped to war zones on American flag ships, I believe it is critical to the livelihood of the Nation that our maritime academies continue to produce the professional men and women needed in the maritime trades.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I still remember standing on the steps of the Capitol on October 14, 1998--thousands gathered on a cool autumn evening--to remember Matthew Shepard 2 days after he had been killed in Laramie, WY. That night I said: Matthew Shepard is not the exception to the rule--his tragic death is the extreme example of what happens on a daily basis in our schools, on our streets, and in our communities. And that's why we have an obligation to pass laws that make clear our determination to root out this hatred. We hear a lot from Congress today about how we are a country of laws, not men. Let them make good on those words, and pass hate crimes legislation. Almost 10 years have passed since that candlelight vigil--10 years too long for Washington to do what was so obviously needed. Violent hate crimes are on the rise--almost 10,000 violent acts of hate against individuals based on their sexual orientation have been reported to the authorities since Matthew Shepard's murder. What a tragic reminder of the urgency of providing local law enforcement with the added resources and support needed to get tough on hate crimes. What a horrific wake-up call to a sleepy Washington about the need to ensure a Federal backstop to assist local law enforcement in those cases in which they request assistance or fail to adequately investigate or prosecute these serious crimes. The good news is that today with this Senate vote we will move one step closer than ever to legislating a Federal hate crimes law that includes sexual orientation and gender identity--the Matthew Shepard Act. This is the least we can do, as we committed to do that night in 1998, to insure that ``the lesson of Matthew Shepard is not forgotten.'' It is the least we can do to right a wrong in an America where every morning, someone takes the long way to class, an America where every day someone looks over his shoulder on the street, and still today in America innocent people fear for their safety--all because some people hate them for being who they were born to be--gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. This fight is not over, but this vote is an important milestone in the fight--a day when I hope we will begin at last to turn the tide, and reaffirm our faith that the strength of human justice can overcome the hatred in our society by confronting it. I want to thank my friend and colleague, Senator Kennedy, for his hard work to address hate crimes and ensure that this vital legislation is enacted.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, I am reintroducing a Senate resolution to raise awareness of the prostate cancer crisis that exists among African-American men. This resolution challenges Congress to provide the funds necessary to increase research funding, prevent and fight the disease, and to encourage African-American men to get screened. For me, this is personal. I am a prostate cancer survivor, and my experience opened my eyes to the horrific disparities in prevention, treatment, and long-term prognosis for prostate cancer in the African- American community. I learned a lot from my friend Tom Farrington. Tom and I are both lucky. We were diagnosed with prostate cancer--and we got cured. Our fathers weren't so lucky. Prostate cancer took them away from us. But once I got well, and once T om got well, we started learning more and more, and a statistic that stays with me and with Tom, who is African American, speaks volumes. African-American men are 80 percent more likely to die of prostate cancer than White men. Prostate cancer is the second leading cause of cancer related death for African-American men, who have the highest incidence and mortality rate due to prostate cancer of any ethnic or racial group. African-American men are dying at a rate of 140 percent--almost 2\1/2\ times--higher than other groups. That is the largest disparity for any major cancer. I started digging more and discovered the unacceptable apartheid of health care in America-- and I believe that just as the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was wrong in education, i t is wrong in health care. The quality of health care should never depend on the color of any American's skin. Epidemic levels of prostate cancer amongst African Americans have not changed. We all need to work together to support those suffering from prostate cancer and to encourage regular screening and early detection. It is a tragedy that so many Af rican-American men are dying today from treatable illnesses they don't discover until it is too late--and righting this wrong is a matter of social justice as well as public policy. I urge every Member of Congress to support this resolution.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, against all odds, the long-suffering people of Burma have risen against one of the world's most repressive regimes. What began a month ago as modest, impromptu protests has now mushroomed into a nationwide peaceful democratic groundswell. Tens of thousands of students have joined Buddhist monks in the streets, marching and chanting in unison against Burma's brutal military rulers. I met with some of those rulers a number of years ago when I went to Burma. I also had a chance to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi in her home where she has been under house arrest. It is an extraordinary division that is growing and growing in Burma, where the military junta, unbelievably unpopular, nevertheless clings to power through the force of the military which it controls. The riches of the country are exclusively being diverted to their spoils, while Burma remains now and increasingly becomes poorer and poorer. The Burmese people need to know that the courage they are demonstrating today and what they are fighting for is being watched by people all over the world, that we admire what they are attempting to achieve, and that we stand in awe of their commitment, of their courage. Their actions follow in the venerable footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, and all of those heroes who understand that nonviolent resistance is humanity's greatest weapon against tyranny and injustice. We, with all of the tools available to us, need to make certain the people of Burma understand that their courage is breaking through and that this moment is one we share with them. What is happening today in the streets of Rangoon is, however, as tenuous as it is unexpected. Just this morning, we learned that warning shots were fired and tensions are escalating. I do not know how many people realize it, but the Government of Burma, the junta, moved to its own sort of private capital and has created this almost surreal exiled government where they feel safe, as if living in a bunker within the isolation of Burma itself. Just this morning, we also learned that the cabal of generals that is pillaging Burma under the guise of governing it could easily meet these nonviolent protests with a bloodbath, just as they did in 1988. So it is important that none of us allow the scrutiny on Burma to be diminished. This could conceivably become another Tiananmen Square moment, if it does. No one should doubt the Burmese junta's potential for brutality and large-scale violence. Since taking power, they have killed tens of thousands of Burmese, and they have razed more villages than have been destroyed in Darfur. Over half a million people have been internally displaced, and an additional 1 million refugees have fled the country. The tyrannical thugs who run the country are engaged in the systematic use of forced labor, human trafficking, forcible recruitment of child soldiers, torture and rape--an appalling laundry list of human rights violations. Yet, despite such grave danger, the people of Burma have stood strong in the face of this extraordinary evil. They demand Democratic reforms and basic human rights, and they have done so with dignity, and they have done so peacefully. The United States and the rest of the free world must find more ways to make it clear that we stand with the people of Burma. The President's decision yesterday to target the top general for financial sanctions is a step in the right direction, but it will not solve the problem, and it is not enough. The massive prodemocracy demonstrations in Burma represent the best opportunity for genuine political change in nearly years. Burma's Saffron Revolution is also an excellent chance for America to finally show greater diplomatic leadership on the world stage. The United States needs to lead the international community in pressuring the military junta to release all political prisoners, starting with the venerable Nobel Prize laureate and opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi, and take steps down the path from there to more thorough political change. This week's gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly is ready made. It is a forum waiting to be utilized properly. My hope is that the United Nations will take the necessary steps to make even more clear the world's condemnation but, more importantly, to create real pressure, and that includes pressure from places such as China, which has been playing a clearly duplicitous game because of their deep investments, their proximity, and other occasional similarities in the way in which they have dealt with democracy uprisings. From the halls of the United Nations to the headquarters of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, the message to the Burmese military needs to be clear: The world is united behind the people marching in your streets. Do not meet peaceful protest with still more butchering. We are prepared, all of us--and we must make this clear--to act in concert against you unless you immediately embark on serious negotiations toward sharing power with the people of Burma. Showing diplomatic leadership on Burma also requires that we demand better from those countries that have propped up this brutal regime and are thus the best equipped to help pressure it. India and, in particular, China can make a significant difference in this outcome. The President and the United Nations must engage in strenuous diplomacy with Beijing, which carries the most sway with Burma's generals, and urge the Chinese to press for reform. China has in its grasp a momentous opportunity to demonstrate leadership commensurate with its growing power and status. Beijing can host the 2008 Olympics as an enabler of cruelty and repression or it can do so as a responsible stakeholder in the world community. The Olympics will not masquerade or cover up for its absence from this challenge. This is an important test. The world is watching. As the international community exerts greater pressure on the military junta, it must also reach out more aggressively with humanitarian assistance for the Burmese people. The people of Burma have suffered not only the bullets and bayonets of the current regime but also from decades of misrule that have transformed their resource- rich nation into one of the poorest in Asia. All you have to do is go to YouTube, and you can watch footage of the wedding of the general's daughter, one of the junta general's daughters, laden in diamonds the size of pebbles, an example of the excesses of their coercion of power while the country gets poorer and poorer and people suffer as a consequence. Many of Burma's 52 million people live in abject misery. About one- third are mired in poverty. Nearly half of all the children never get to go to school. Malaria and tuberculosis are widespread. Mortality rates in Burma are among the highest in Asia. At least 37,000 died of HIV/AIDS in 2005 and over 600,000 are infected with HIV. Burma's suffering destabilizes southeast Asia--heroin and methamphetamines, HIV/AIDs, and other infectious diseases, as well as hordes of refugees spilling across Burma's borders into neighboring countries. The international community must respond to this ongoing tragedy by providing humanitarian aid to a desperate and deserving people. Current levels of international assistance are simply woefully insufficient. We need a network of public and private donors to fund health, education, and infrastructure projects. The resilient and brave Burmese people have shown that they are more than worthy of our support and compassion. They are fighting for democracy. We need to join that fight. I close by offering a final word of warning. We dare not forget Burma's last great democratic uprising. It occurred in 1988. It was brutally crushed by the military at the cost of over 3,000 innocent lives. That day and the repression that followed show the horrible human toll of our collective failure to act. A peaceful prodemocratic outcome in Burma is actually within reach, if the international community were to seize this moment. The United Nations, ASEAN, India, and especially China must stand with the United States in solidarity with the Burmese people. All of us must not fail the people of Burma again. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I say to my friend from Virginia we actually passed my amendment that did require the international effort we are talking about. Regrettably, we are a year later, and that international leverage has still not come to fruition, so I am delighted now.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I understand there is no time agreement; is that right?