John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise today to speak to the Levin-Reid- Kerry et. al amendment with respect to Iraq. Today the President made a partial report on Iraq. And while it is true there has been some tactical military success, no amount of spinning, no amount of focus on the military component can obscure the bottom line reality in Iraq today. That reality is clear. There has been no meaningful political progress. In the long run, that is the only progress that matters, that makes a difference to our policy because it is the politics that is producing the killing and the chaos in Iraq. Unless and until Iraqis resolve their fundamental political differences, any security gains will be temporary at best, particularly given the numbers of troops that are committed to that security, and given the difficulties that we already understand in terms of deployment schedules. That is a fundamental underlying reality that colleagues in the Senate need to focus on. Any tactical gain in the short term, whether it is in Anbar Province, Diyala, or elsewhere, is welcome now, but the fact is, it is fundamentally temporary absent the political resolution that is critical to ultimately ending the violence. So moving the goalposts, dressing up the failure to meet strict benchmarks as progress, those are, frankly, rationalizations for failure over the long term. They are not plans for success. It is hard when you measure the absence of political progress over the course of the last months against these temporary tactical gains. It is very difficult to suggest that we are doing anything except sort of committing American forces, troops, to a kind of holding action for hope, hope that there is some turn and some kind of outcome. I think most of us would rather have the U.S. military committed to what we all consider to be a winning strategy, not a hopeful strategy. Meanwhile, in the middle of the President's report, partial report today, another, frankly, more chilling and important report tells us that while we have been bogged down and distracted in Iraq, al-Qaida, which the President keeps referring to as the central enemy, al-Qaida has found a safe heaven in Pakistan. Al-Qaida has rebuilt its organization. Today, top intelligence officials tell the United States that al- Qaida is better positioned to strike the West than they have been at any time since 9/11. I think any American hearing this, after these several thousand lives have been sacrificed in Iraq, to hear that al- Qaida, which is the principal focus of the war on terrorism, is stronger today after all of these billions of dollars and lives lost in Iraq, is a stunning turn of events, shocking turn of events, one that ought to stop everyone in the Senate to collectively turn our policy to where it ought to be, which is the focus on al-Qaida and not the focus in Iraq. In fact, what has happened in Anbar Province proves that al-Qaida can become more of a minimalist kind of threat in Iraq itself when measured against the threat of the political killing that is taking place between Sunni and Shia, Shia and Sunni. Our principal focus, notwithstanding this report from our own intelligence agencies, is where? It is on Iraq. Not principally where it ought to be, in Afghanistan and northwest Pakistan. Iraq is not just a distraction from the fight against terrorists, it is, frankly, al- Qaida's best fundraising tool. It is al-Qaida's best organizational magnet. You did not have to wait until September in order to understand what is happening today and what will continue to happen in the absence of any measure of political progress. So what we need is not a step away by the Senate, not some sort of delaying tactic to wait for the magic of hope to produce itself in September, what we need is the hard work of the Senate to produce a policy for change now. Two days ago I heard some of my colleagues come to the floor and question why we are having this debate now when the White House is going to report on the escalation in September? I heard the Senator from Alabama, Mr. Sessions, say: This is not the time to alter the policy we established about 2 months ago. I heard Senator Kyl from Arizona say: We need to wait for the report in September before making judgments about what to do next. I heard the senior Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, ask--and these are his words: Why do we have to keep taking up the Iraq issue when we know full well in September there will be a major debate on this issue? Well, I have respect for all of the opinions of all colleagues in the Senate. I particularly have respect and know how much my friend, my colleague from Arizona, cares about American troops and understands the price of war. But I think that is the wrong question. Those are the wrong questions. The American people understand why we ought to debate this issue now. The answer is very simple, and it is very compelling. It is because American soldiers are dying now, and because the escalation, the purpose of the escalation--which was to provide cover for the Iraqi politicians to make compromises--can be judged a failure now. When a policy is not working, you do not wait for an artificial timeline to fix it; you fix it now. The very same voices who have come to the floor for years condemning artificial deadlines now want to wait for more Americans to die and more Iraqis to kill each other, until the artificial deadline of September, regardless of what the facts tell us today. I believe they want to do it so President Bush can deliver his report, even though we know today what the heart of that report will be. In fact, the President delivered a partial report today. I think most people understand, because it is obvious, that the facts are beginning to accelerate the need to be able to have a more rapid response. The report in September, I guarantee my colleagues, will reflect exactly what we see today. Violence will be up in some places, and it will be down in others. There will be some tactical successes. Our military will deserve the credit for those, and our soldiers will have earned those tactical successes the hard way. But no matter what sacrifices they have made, and they will have made extraordinary sacrifices, the fact remains that absent the political differences, which already we are hearing they will not make, and they are not prepared to engage in, absent that, the civil war will be raging on and squabbling Iraqi politicians and sectarian forces will refuse to compromise. And, most importantly, despite the so-called breathing room that the escalation was supposed to provide, there will be no real political progress. What is happening now is as disturbing as anything I have seen in the 23 years that I have been in the Senate. I came here in 1985 during the height of the Cold War. President Reagan was at that time leading us in an effort to try to confront the continued nuclear confrontation under which we had lived since the end of World War II. I think all of us remember well what a critical moment of confrontation that was. But I came here principally on this issue of war and peace. It was also a time when we were deeply caught up in an illegal war in Central America, and the issue of the contras came to dominate the debate in Washington for a period of time. I mention that because the issues of the lessons of war and how America goes to war and what we do has been something that has been at the center of my involvement in public life. I must say, what I see today happening, I regret, reminds me of what I thought was a lesson that we had learned in the course of the Vietnam war, and something that we had always resolved to avoid. Many of us remember how then-President Nixon continued our involvement because he didn't want history to judge him as having lost a war, notwithstanding that he didn't begin it, he inherited it. So we continued our intervention in a civil war for pride and to save face, not because we had a winning strategy. Presidents and politicians may have the luxury of worrying about losing face or worrying about their legacy, but the Senate has the responsibility to worry about young Americans and innocent civilians who are losing their lives now for a policy that is failing now. In recent weeks, some have reminded me of a question I asked when I returned from service in Vietnam almost 40 years ago, when I spoke from my heart about what I thought was wrong with that war. Back in 1971, I was privileged to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and raised the question: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? I never thought I would be reliving that question again. I never thought I would have parents of young Americans killed in Iraq look me in the eye and tell me: Senator, my son died in vain. On a personal level, I happen to disagree with that statement. I think each of my colleagues probably does also. I believe that any American--I heard the Senator from Idaho talking about this--no matter the bad decisions made in Washington, no matter the faults of the policy, any American who gives up life or limb for love of country has never done so in vain. Because service to country under any circumstances is the highest calling there is. I would like to be able to tell those parents that their sons and daughters died for a policy that was equal to their service and equal to their sacrifice. I thought we had learned something from Vietnam. I thought we had learned something from a war that went on and on, a war that was escalated long after Presidents and policymakers knew that no number of American troops could end the civil war between the Vietnamese. Here we are back in the same place today, where no number of American troops in Iraq can end a civil war between Iraqis. I think most of our colleagues understand this war in Iraq was a disastrous mistake and the policy being pursued today which doesn't resolve the fundamental differences that are propelling Iraqis to kill Iraqis is itself a mistake. So we are seeing a war prolonged and prosecuted not for a winning strategy. No general has come to us, no administration official has come to us in 407, where we meet for our secret briefings, or in any committee and said: This is a winning strategy. What we have is a hope, a wing, and a prayer that somehow these Iraqis are going to come together and make some decisions. But we don't even have the kind of leverage diplomacy that war deserves to maximize the ability of those people to come together. We are seeing a war prolonged to prosecute it not for a winning strategy but for a refusal to accept reality. What is that reality? We have heard it from General Casey, General Abizaid, General Petraeus, from the Secretary of State, from the President, and the Vice President--there is no military solution. Each Member has to ask themselves in these next days, what is our responsibility to our soldiers and to our country--not to our political party, not to an ideology. What is our responsibility to the soldiers and to country? I think it is pretty straightforward. It is to get the policy right, not in September but now. The only question on this Senate floor now is whether we are going to have the courage to change the policy and get it right. The only question is whether we are going to stop this administration from adding to the thousands of mistakes compounded one upon the other or whether we are going to say: Well, we would like to do it. We kind of have the responsibility to. We hear people in cloakrooms privately saying: I think it is wrong. Boy, it is screwed up. But it doesn't translate into votes. It is that simple. If you think the policy is broken now, then we ought to fix it now, because lives are at stake, as are the interests of our country. Our security is at stake, and the war on terror is at stake. If anybody needs a reminder of the urgency, I say to them respectfully: You don't have to wait until September to get a reminder. All you have to do is go out to Arlington Cemetery almost any day of the week. You can see the many military funerals but particularly those of servicemembers who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. You can see the precise military honor given to each of those soldiers, the flags draping the coffin rippling in the breeze. You can see the honor guard folding that flag meticulously into that sharp triangle of blue and white stars and then handing it to the loved ones, the wife, the mother, husband, father. Then hear those words: On behalf of a grateful nation, and watch people crumble. We are losing about 100 soldiers a month. I ask my colleagues: How many more times is that scene going to be repeated between now and September? How many more times is that scene going to be repeated before this institution does what it is supposed to do? How are you going to feel in September if you finally wind up saying: Well, I think the policy is broken now? And what will happen with respect to the parents of those soldiers and their families, those who gave their lives so we could wait for a report to tell us the obvious, what we know today? Over a year ago, Senator Feingold and I came to the Senate floor and we asked our colleagues to confront this very reality, to recognize the fact that our own generals knew even then there was no American military solution to an Iraqi civil war, to acknowledge that the political progress necessary for the Iraqis to end their civil war would come only if America compelled them to act by imposing meaningful deadlines and leveraging those deadlines with legitimate diplomatic effort. That was 1 year ago. We got 13 votes. People said at the time: Well, we are not ready. I am not there yet. One thousand Americans have died since then. I ask those folks: What about now? Are you ready now or will it take another thousand? It is not the numbers per se, because America has lost many more people in other wars. What it is is the numbers measured against the strategy and the progress. That is where our responsibility lies. By any measurement, we have a requirement to respond now. Those 13 votes have now grown to more than 50 votes today, but still the policy is the same. Today Senator Levin and Senator Reed, myself and others are asking the Members of the Senate to look hard at what we are proposing. Don't fall prey to the quick hit, easy stereotype, political denunciation of what is happening here. This is a legitimate policy proposal which, if it were joined in in a bipartisan way, would send a critical message to Iraqis and to folks in the region about the dynamic that has to change in order to truly meet all of our strategic interests in that region. I have heard some people use descriptions that it is a recipe for failure. Well, measured against what, No. 1? No. 2, it is the only way, according to most of the experts outside the Senate, to actually leverage a shift in behavior by the Iraqis who today believe they can continue to play the American presence off for their own political purposes. The fact is, it is only by shifting to a different deployment, which is what we do. There is no precipitous, complete withdrawal from Iraq, to the chagrin of some people who think there absolutely should be. There is a responsible, calculated, carefully timed process by which, together with our own deployment schedules, we have laid out an ability for the President to continue to finish the training, to chase al-Qaida and prosecute the war on terror, and to protect American forces. According to the Iraq Study Group, according to all of the outside analyses that have looked at this issue, the fact is, those are the only legitimate things we ought to be called on to do a year from now. Nobody is talking about next month or 2 months from now that suddenly Iraq would be abandoned. The fact is, we have come to a moment where the private hand wringing we see in the elevators and in private conversations has run its course. It is time to speak one's conscience publicly through votes, not privately. It is legitimate to suggest that to wait until September for a report, where most of the intelligence community and most of the observers we have talked to who have followed this issue closely and report to us appropriately tell us themselves that there is precious little, if any, advance with respect to the political compromise, makes it exceedingly difficult to be able to suggest that. I think we have lost 523 Americans who have died since the escalation started. In the next 2 months at the rate of 100 a month, you are looking at over 200 that we know will die for a policy that remains a mistake over those next 2 months. Let me lay out for a moment where we are with respect to this political solution, because it makes the picture even more stark. It has been over 1 year now since the Maliki government took power. What have we asked of them? What have they agreed to? What have they accomplished? Virtually nothing accomplished politically. But it is not the first time the Iraqis have not met any of the requests made of them and items agreed to. The fact is that 9 months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. Neither one has been approved. Eight months ago was the deadline for a new de- Baathfication law to help bring the Sunnis into the government. Guess what. It hasn't been approved, and nothing happened as a consequence of its not being approved. Seven months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to approve legislation to disarm the militias. Absolutely no progress has been made on this crucial legislation and the militias continue to wreak havoc. Six months ago was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional review process. The constitutional committee hasn't even drafted proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on basic issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkuk. So we find ourselves today no closer to a political solution than we were when the Maliki government took power over 1 year ago, but over 1,100 American troops have given their lives since that time. We are no closer than we were in January when the President decided to disregard key elements of the Iraq Study Group and announced the escalation, but over 600 additional American troops have died since then. Without real deadlines to pressure the Iraqis to a new reality, we will not be able to leverage their behavior. If you can't do it that way, having seen that we can't do it this other way, it may be that you can't do it, in which case American troops should not be caught in the middle of what they are determined to pursue. One-third of the Cabinet in Iraq, including the major Sunni party, is currently boycotting the Government. Iraq's Parliament, which cannot even muster a quorum more than once every week or two, is reportedly still going to go on vacation for the entire month of August without having met their schedule. It is pretty hard to discern how you turn to the parent of a troop who is maimed or killed in the course of the month of August while the Iraqi politicians are vacationing without even meeting one of the political requirements that has been set out. So I think there is a guarantee they are not going to meet the political progress before September, absent some change that is not currently on the horizon. The front page of Sunday's Washington Post tells us pretty much all we need to know: [T]he Iraqi government is unlikely to meet any of the political and security goals or timelines President Bush set for it in January when he announced a major shift in U.S. policy. So time is not on our side, and it has not been on our side for a long time, and no escalation is going to change that. The President keeps telling us, and tells Americans, that we must not abandon the fight against al-Qaida in Iraq and leave them with a safe haven. Well, how many times do we have to say it? We all agree with that. That is not even on the table. No one is talking about abandoning Iraq to al-Qaida. No one is talking about not continuing to prosecute the war against al-Qaida. In fact, in the Levin-Reed-Kerry amendment there is a specific statement with respect to a specific provision with respect to the President's need to continue to prosecute al-Qaida in Iraq. We all agree with that. That is not the issue. What it is is a phony argument, and I think our troops and the country deserve better than a phony argument. We deserve more than a Presidential straw man in a debate while real men and women are fighting and putting their lives on the line for us. Our bill keeps in place the troops necessary to prosecute al-Qaida. Our bill keeps in place the troops necessary to complete the training of Iraqis to stand up for themselves. Our bill keeps in place the troops necessary to protect American facilities and forces. And 1 year from now that is all our mission ought to be. We have troops in many other parts of the region--Kuwait, Bahrain, in the Gulf, and many other places--and we have the ability to do what we need to do to represent our interests with respect to Iran and with respect to the region. But we must redefine our mission and focus on our vital national interests, and chief among those is fighting al- Qaida smartly. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to sacrifice over 100 American troops per month as we stretch our military past the breaking point for a policy that we know does not address the fundamental issues and resolve those issues. The troops deserve to know they are being asked to sacrifice for real progress. It is wrong to keep spending over $10 billion each month--$456 billion in total--for this war of choice. We cannot continue telling Americans that refereeing an Iraqi civil war is worth more in our blood and treasure than it would have been to provide Head Start for a year to 60 million of our children or to provide nearly 4 years of health care to every child in America or to provide a tenfold increase in foreign aid to express the real face and values of America all over the world. In fact, all of the money that has been spent in Iraq could have funded a Middle East development plan nearly four times as large as the Marshall Plan, a plan that would have helped reduce radicalism rather than enflame it. We also cannot continue to squander our moral authority and offer al- Qaida a greater recruiting tool than they could ever have hoped to create for themselves. So my hope is we would work to find a genuine bipartisan majority in the Senate, a majority of conscience, a pragmatic and patriotic majority committed to work across party lines to right a failed policy in Iraq and leave in place a sustainable strategy. Now, let me say a word about that to my colleagues. We keep hearing the words ``precipitous'' and ``failure.'' None of us want failure. We want success. What we are hearing today is--we may have differing views about how you get it; it is not often talked about, but it is clear, and I think it should be talked about--that if we are unsuccessful in seeking the kind of political compromise necessary, there will be a lot of killing that will continue, and there will be people who have put themselves on the line to fight for their own future and for democracy whom we will have obligations to. We need to live up to them. That is another lesson of Vietnam. We need desperately to work together in the best traditions of the Senate and the country to find what I think is real common ground--that we have interests in the region, interests in Iraq, interests with respect to the Middle East peace process, that we will have long-term interests and obligations no matter who is President of the United States or how we approach this and that we need to shift course in order to get to that place. Now, some have insisted on seeing this entire issue exclusively through the prism of victory or defeat over an enemy in battle. But that simply is not the reality of what we see in Iraq today in a civil war. Iraq is a chaotic society, a failed state. The real question is: How do you work together to craft a strategy that is sustainable militarily, politically, financially, and diplomatically? There are areas of broad bipartisan agreement for those who are willing to do that work of building consensus. First of all, I think there is agreement there will be some residual presence among at least the majority of the people on our side of the aisle. In addition, all of us are concerned that our redeployment from Iraq must not happen in a manner that draws us back into a greater conflict at a later date. We ought to be working together to lay the groundwork not just for the next few months but for the next years down the road throughout the region. There is broad agreement that we must refocus our mission on what ought to be our core objective: fighting terrorists. Indeed, in the alternative, we are creating more terrorists daily as a result of our policy than if we were to shift it. So refocusing the mission means American troops should be hunting and killing al-Qaida and not being killed on patrol through the streets of Baghdad in the middle of a civil strife where they become a target of opportunity for any person who wants to create a headline. It means training Iraqis to patrol Iraqi streets and refocusing our mission on preventing this war from spreading into a regional conflict. And finally--and this is perhaps most important of all because you cannot get to any of the other things if you do not do this; and we have not done it--we need to embark on a major diplomatic outreach to restore America's influence and credibility in the Middle East. I will offer an amendment asking the Senate to go on record supporting a standing conference for the region, including the Permanent Five of the United Nations and all the regional partners and neighbors and parties, in order to reclaim the diplomatic initiative in Iraq and throughout the region. This debate also ought to be part of a larger framework. In Lebanon, the Siniora Government is hanging on by a thread as it confronts Sunni extremists sympathetic to al-Qaida in the north and Shia extremists led by an empowered Hezbollah in the south. Iran and Syria have stepped into the vacuum, leading reconstruction efforts after the last war and creating a greater connection to the people in the street as a result. Now they are rearming Hezbollah for the next war. The Palestinians have fought a brief civil war that left an emboldened Hamas in control of Gaza, and again Iran and Syria stand poised to take advantage of that. Never has there been a more important moment to try to move together collectively, diplomatically in that effort. None of these events, frankly, should have taken us by surprise because King Abdullah of Jordan loudly warned of three civil wars last year. Yet time and again we seem to be taken by surprise when events on the ground spin out of control, and then we are left scrambling to patch together an ad hoc response from half a world away. That simply cannot continue. It is not in our interest. It certainly is not in the interest of the region. So we need a reliable multilateral regional forum for preventing these situations from becoming crises--and for responding when they do. That is why we have to lead the effort to convene Iraq's leaders and key regional players in the effort to do that. In the end, we need to reach for the best traditions of the Senate and look back to the bipartisan accomplishments of men such as Republican Senator Arthur Vandenberg, who chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and worked closely with Democratic President Harry Truman, and together they helped to create--were the principal leaders in creating--a new world order and a winning strategy in the Cold War. They cooperated on a series of institutions and treaties--NATO, the IMF, the U.N. Charter, the Marshall Plan--and all of those outlived both of them. When Arthur Vandenberg passed away in 1951, the Chaplain at his funeral said: We thank Thee that in the gathering storm of aggression which now rages, Thy servant Arthur H. Vandenberg, in a time that called for greatness, grew into greatness. This is a long time since the time of Arthur Vandenberg and Harry Truman, but for the Senate to live up to its own obligations and possibilities, I believe we ought to go back to the politics that stops at the water's edge when it comes to foreign policy. I think we ought to grab that opportunity here and now to change our policy in Iraq. Why? Not for partisan advantage but to strengthen our country in the pursuit of our interests in the region and to truly support our troops and provide the kind of direction that will strengthen America and strengthen us in the war on terror.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last night there was a vote on a critical amendment to the immigration bill, Senator Baucus' proposal to strip any reference to REAL ID in the underlying bill. This, truly, is a case of addition by subtraction. REAL ID--astronomically expensive, personally intrusive, controversial, and unrealistic, passed by the last Congress without real scrutiny--is precisely the kind of impractical trigger that could derail comprehensive immigration reform. Unless we amend this bill, real reform will have to wait for REAL ID. Consider the groups lined up against it: not just the ACLU, but also the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the National Governors Association. Since REAL ID passed in the last Congress, 16 States have enacted anti-Real ID bills or resolutions. Another 22 States, including my own, have anti-Real ID bills and resolutions pending in their State legislatures. Why are they so opposed to REAL ID? They are opposed because it sets an unreachable standard and offers States almost no financial help in meeting it. Conservative estimates State that it would cost $23 billion to fully implement REAL ID. This legislation only authorizes $1.5 billion for States and the President didn't ask for a single dollar for REAL ID in his budget request. That means that States would have to shoulder a $21 billion burden. That is an enormous unfunded mandate. This crushing financial burden on States is bad enough--but REAL ID poses a security risk as well. Its requirements expose people's personal data to theft by creating a massive pool of highly sensitive personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth certificates and driving information. Even if States could pay for this new program it would require a tremendous amount of personnel and work to get this done. The Massachusetts DMV has estimated it would take 10 years to reenroll current citizens with licenses alone, which would place them beyond the 2013 deadline in the bill. REAL ID is profoundly flawed--That is why six States have passed laws that prohibit it from being implemented at all. These States will never be REAL ID compliant and that is why its inclusion in the immigration bill is so dangerous. Immigration reform is difficult enough without conditioning it on an unfeasible, unfunded mandate that States are not only unwilling but in some cases legally bound not to meet. Squaring that circle should not be a precondition for a much larger need: providing real immigration reform for the American people. I am proud to have supported the Baucus-Tester amendment to remove this dangerous and nonsensical provision from the underlying bill. I hope that we will be able to move forward and create a fair, reasonable and comprehensive immigration bill that this country so desperately needs.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the coming weeks, the Finance Committee will meet to consider legislation to reauthorize the vitally important State Children's Health Insurance Program, S-CHIP. The legislation that comes through committee will represent this Congress's first opportunity to make a loud and clear statement regarding the importance of children's health as a national priority. As a member of the Finance Committee, I am focused on one goal: to insure each and everyone of the 11 million kids under the age of 21 who are uninsured today, while making sure that no other kids slip through the cracks. The first bill I introduced in this Congress, S. 95, the Kids Come First Act, would accomplish just that. Because the Bush administration and previous Republican Congresses have played fast and loose with our Nation's finances, today we face an enormous budget deficit. The unfortunate reality is that we may not be able to accomplish all of the goals set forth in Kids Come First. But the Democratic Congress is committed to doing everything in our power to expand health coverage to children this year. Much of our efforts will be focused on S-CHIP reauthorization. But there are additional steps we can take to begin to address this problem. The Small Business Children's Health Education Act, which I am introducing today with Senator Snowe, represents one of those steps. In February of 2007, the Urban Institute reported that among those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, children whose families are self-employed or who work for small business concerns are far less likely to be enrolled. Specifically, one out of every four eligible children with parents who work for a small business or who are self-employed are not enrolled. This statistic compares with just 1 out of every 10 eligible children whose parents work for a large firm. We need to do a better job of informing and educating America's small business owners and employees of the options that may be available for covering uninsured children. To that effect, the Small Business Children's Health Education Act creates an intergovernmental task force, consisting of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct a campaign to enroll kids of small business employees who are eligible for S-CHIP and Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. To educate America's small businesses on the availability of S-CHIP and Medicaid, the task force is authorized to make use of the Small Business Administration's business partners, including the Service Corps of Retired Executives, the Small Business Development Centers, Certified Development Companies, and Women's Business Centers, and is authorized to enter into memoranda of understanding with chambers of commerce across the country. Additionally, the Small Business Administration is directed to post S-CHIP and Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment information on its website, and to report back to the Senate and House Committees on Small Business regarding the status and successes of the task force's efforts to enroll eligible kids. If you believe that we should be doing everything in our power to get every kid in this country insured, then this proposal is a no-brainer. It is estimated that 6 million of the 9 million uninsured children living in the United States are currently eligible for S-CHIP and Medicaid. These are kids who already meet the criteria for coverage, we just need to get the word to their parents and to their parents' employers that they are eligible. Ultimately, this is about priorities. I believe that the richest country on earth should not rest until all of our children are as safe and as healthy as they can possibly be. I thank Senator Snowe for our longstanding partnership on issues critical to America's small business owners, and for her work on this legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Snowe in once again introducing the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007. This legislation will establish mental health care parity in the Medicare Program. Medicare currently requires patients to pay a 20 percent copayment for all Part B services except mental health care services, for which patients are assessed a 50 percent copayment. Thus, under the current system, if a Medicare patient sees an endocrinologist for diabetes treatment, an oncologist for cancer treatment, a cardiologist for heart disease treatment or an internist for treatment of the flu, the copayment is 20 percent of the cost of the visit. If, however, a Medicare patient visits a psychiatrist for treatment of mental illness, the copayment is 50 percent of the cost of the visit. This disparity in outpatient copayment represents blatant discrimination against Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness. The prevalence of mental illness in older adults is considerable. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, 20 percent of older adults in the community and 40 percent of older adults in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression, while as many as one out of every two residents in nursing homes are at risk of depression. The elderly have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S., and there is a clear correlation between major depression and suicide: 60 to 75 percent of suicides among patients 75 and older have diagnosable depression. In addition to our seniors, hundreds of thousands of nonelderly disabled Medicare beneficiaries become Medicare-eligible by virtue of severe and persistent mental disorders. To subject the mentally disabled to discriminatory costs in coverage for the very conditions for which they became Medicare eligible is illogical and unfair. There is ample evidence that mental illness can be treated. Unfortunately, among the general population, those in need for treatment often do not seek it because they are ashamed of their condition. Among our Medicare population, the mentally ill face a double burden: not only must they overcome the stigma about their illness, but once they seek treatment they must pay one-half of the cost of care out of their own pocket. The Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will provide for the reduction of the coinsurance rate for outpatient mental health services over a 6-year period. By applying the same 20 percent copayment rate to mental health services to which all other outpatient services are subjected, the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will bring parity to the Medicare Program and improve access to care for our senior and disabled beneficiaries who are living with mental illness.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleague Senator Snowe in once again introducing the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act of 2007. This legislation will establish mental health care parity in the Medicare Program. Medicare currently requires patients to pay a 20 percent copayment for all Part B services except mental health care services, for which patients are assessed a 50 percent copayment. Thus, under the current system, if a Medicare patient sees an endocrinologist for diabetes treatment, an oncologist for cancer treatment, a cardiologist for heart disease treatment or an internist for treatment of the flu, the copayment is 20 percent of the cost of the visit. If, however, a Medicare patient visits a psychiatrist for treatment of mental illness, the copayment is 50 percent of the cost of the visit. This disparity in outpatient copayment represents blatant discrimination against Medicare beneficiaries with mental illness. The prevalence of mental illness in older adults is considerable. According to the U.S. Surgeon General, 20 percent of older adults in the community and 40 percent of older adults in primary care settings experience symptoms of depression, while as many as one out of every two residents in nursing homes are at risk of depression. The elderly have the highest rate of suicide in the U.S., and there is a clear correlation between major depression and suicide: 60 to 75 percent of suicides among patients 75 and older have diagnosable depression. In addition to our seniors, hundreds of thousands of nonelderly disabled Medicare beneficiaries become Medicare-eligible by virtue of severe and persistent mental disorders. To subject the mentally disabled to discriminatory costs in coverage for the very conditions for which they became Medicare eligible is illogical and unfair. There is ample evidence that mental illness can be treated. Unfortunately, among the general population, those in need for treatment often do not seek it because they are ashamed of their condition. Among our Medicare population, the mentally ill face a double burden: not only must they overcome the stigma about their illness, but once they seek treatment they must pay one-half of the cost of care out of their own pocket. The Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will provide for the reduction of the coinsurance rate for outpatient mental health services over a 6-year period. By applying the same 20 percent copayment rate to mental health services to which all other outpatient services are subjected, the Medicare Mental Health Copayment Equity Act will bring parity to the Medicare Program and improve access to care for our senior and disabled beneficiaries who are living with mental illness.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we are here today to bring a long overdue measure of fairness to a system that because of years of powerful opposition and millions of dollars spent remains rigged against the American worker. Today, it is simply too difficult for workers to claim their legal right to join a union and too easy for employers to prevent them from doing so. This is no accident, and it must change. Throughout our history, it is the labor movement above all else which has stood up as the driving force in support of working Americans, a gateway to the middle class. So much of what we take for granted today--the 5-day workweek, paid vacations, pensions, health insurance didn't happen by accident; they became reality because people in organized labor were willing to fight, willing to march, and sometimes willing to die to stand up for the rights of the American worker. But the work of making America a little bit more fair and a little bit more just isn't over--and once again to achieve another milestone we must stand with labor over the objections of powerful corporate opposition. As a cosponsor and strong supporter of the Employee Free Choice Act of 2007, I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture to pass this important legislation and continue the march of progress in this century which organized labor began in the last one. In 1935 Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, NLRA, historic legislation that marked the first time the Federal Government recognized collective bargaining as a right for workers. Employees won the right to organize and a legal forum to settle disputes with management, air grievances, and generally improve workplace standards. This 1935 law represented a tremendous breakthrough for workers, but its unintended consequences have worked to undo its basic promise that when a majority of workers want to join a union, they have the right to do so. Unfortunately, the union recognition process today allows antiunion employers to stall both the organizing and bargaining process for months and even years--opening up the door for the very abuses the NLRA explicitly seeks to prevent. First, once workers decide and demonstrate that they would like to unionize, our current system offers employers a window of time in which to lobby, cajole, and otherwise pressure them not to do so before holding a surreptitious secret vote. When presented with signatures from a majority of employees, employers can call for a secret election--delaying the process and creating a window of opportunity during which employers can hire antiunion consultants, conduct an unlimited number of employee meetings, and bar labor representatives from the workplace. Second, under the current rules, there are too few penalties to dissuade companies from taking illegal actions far beyond the questionable practices permissible under the NLRA. Facing light penalties, companies make a rational calculation that it is cheaper to violate labor laws and be punished than it is to follow them. In 2005, the National Labor Relations Board, NLRB, reported that 31,000 workers were disciplined or fired for union activity. Studies show that employees are fired in one-quarter of all organizing campaigns and that one in five workers who openly advocate for a union during an election campaign is fired. The odds are stacked against workers: when they present a majority, their employers are given every chance to dissuade them from unionizing. When employers cross these already generous lines and break the law, they are not held to account. The Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 brings the letter of the law in line with the spirit of the law. It takes practical measures to protect and deliver what is supposedly already guaranteed: workers' right to organize. The bill requires the NLRB and businesses to recognize a union when a majority of employees have signed their names to authorization cards and presented them to the National Labor Review Board. It also requires a binding arbitration process if an employer and a new union cannot reach agreement on an initial contract, empowers the NLRB to enforce compliance with the law in Federal court, and levies substantial fines on employers that engage in union-busting activities. This legislation is about fundamental fairness. Millions of Americans want to join a union and ought to be able to, but can't. Just ask John Elia of Melrose, MA, field technician for Verizon who wants to organize his unit within the Communication Workers of America. John has been trying for months to get Verizon to recognize the union authorization cards he and the majority of his coworkers have signed. He even handed the signed cards to Verizon's CEO Ivan Seidenberg and asked him to accept them, but he was refused. Earlier this year, Congressman Stephen Lynch, Congressman John Tierney, Massachusetts Lieutenant Governor Tim Murray, and I publicly verified the field technician's authorization cards and called on Verizon to recognize them but we were refused as well. John Elia wants what every worker wants--better pay, decent health care, a stable retirement plan, and real job security. Research shows that unionized workers are paid 30 percent more than nonunion workers, 92 percent of unionized workers have some health care coverage, and three out of four have defined benefit retirement plans--compared to just one in six nonunion members. No wonder a majority of Americans say they would join a union if they could. This bill is especially timely because the Bush administration has rolled back the clock on worker rights and created an atmosphere that has emboldened many employers to engage in the kind of illegal activity that this bill would help end. For instance, Wal-Mart has been known to shut down stores and relocate them with different employees to prevent them from organizing. The Employee Free Choice Act would require the country's biggest employer to finally recognize its employees' right to form unions and bargain for better pay and benefits. Opponents of this bill including the Chamber of Commerce want us to believe that instant card check recognition is undemocratic and will hurt businesses. In fact, it fulfills the promise of the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 by ensuring that a majority organizing vote will be honored. What is more democratic than honoring the wishes of the majority? Doubters at the Chamber of Commerce may also want to talk to cell phone provider Cingular, which has voluntarily agreed to honor instant card check unionization. Cingular reported $9 billion in revenue and a record $782 million fourth quarter profit in 2006. It hardly seems to be struggling under the weight of its unions. Mr. President, as chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, let me assure you that this bill is not bad for small businesses. It is aimed at large businesses that engage in union- busting, something small businesses cannot afford to do. In fact, 20 million out of America's 26 million small businesses don't have any employees. We must restore balance to a broken labor system that breeds resentment on both sides. We must do so most of all so that millions of Americans see their hard work translate into a better standard of living. I urge my colleagues to support cloture so that we can improve conditions for hardworking Americans everywhere.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday the U.S. Senate passed comprehensive energy legislation that will set the course for our national energy security in the decades to come. The members of this body were able to reach important conclusions regarding the need for increased corporate average fuel economy standards, improved energy efficiency for buildings and appliances, a national standard to help accelerate the development of renewable fuels, and carbon sequestration technology to capture carbon emitted through the burning of coal. The Energy bill approved by the Senate truly represents a shift toward a comprehensive, responsible, and focused national energy policy. Not to be forgotten in establishing this policy are America's small business owners. There are nearly 26 million small businesses in this country--nearly 26 million business owners that are focused on keeping their doors open and putting food on the table for their families. And while climate change and national energy security sometimes seem like distant threats compared to rising health care costs and staying competitive in an increasingly global economy, small business owners are telling us that energy costs are indeed a concern. The National Small Business Association recently conducted a poll of its members, asking how energy prices affected their business decisions. Seventy- five percent said that energy prices had at least a moderate effect on their businesses--with roughly the same number saying that reducing energy costs would increase their profitability. Despite these numbers, only 33 percent have invested in energy efficiency measures. In March of this year, I convened a hearing in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to look at what small businesses can do to confront global warming. We learned over the course of that hearing just how much can be done to help small businesses become energy efficient. We also learned just how little the current administration is doing. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that small businesses consume roughly 30 percent of the commercial energy consumed in this country--that is roughly 2 trillion kBtu of energy per year, and it's costing small business concerns approximately $29 million a year. Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, and add to their bottom line all at the same time. Last night, I worked with Senator Snowe to include two amendments to H.R. 6 that will go a long way toward helping small business owners become more energy efficient. These amendments, which together represent the provisions included in S. 1657, the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, require the Small Business Administration, SBA, to implement an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. To date, the SBA has dragged its feet in implementing a program that could help small business owners to become more energy efficient. Administrator Preston should implement this important program today, and this bill directs him to do so. Second, this legislation establishes a program to increase energy efficiency through energy audits at Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs. The Pennsylvania SBDC currently operates a similar program, and has successfully assisted hundreds of businesses to become more energy efficient. As a result of the program, six of the eight winners of the 2006 ENERGY STAR Small Business Awards given by the EPA went to Pennsylvania businesses. This program should be replicated so that small businesses across the country have the same opportunity to cut energy costs through the efficiency measures. Third, the SBA Administrator is authorized to guarantee on-bill financing agreements between businesses and utility companies, to cover a utility company's risk in entering into such an agreement. The federal government should encourage utility companies to pursue these agreements with businesses, where an electric utility will cover the up-front costs of implementing energy efficiency measures, and a business will repay these costs through the savings realized in their energy bill. Fourth, the legislation creates a telecommuting pilot program through the SBA. The Administrator is authorized to establish a program that produces educational materials and performs outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting. Finally, the legislation encourages increased innovation by providing a priority status within the SBIR and STTR programs that ensures high priority be given to small business concerns participating in energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects. As a nation, we have much to do to secure our future energy supply and to solve the international crisis that is global warming. Last night's approval of H.R. 6 demonstrates this body's will to set the right course, and America's small business owners should know that Congress is providing them with the tools they need to join the crusade. Mr. President, last night, we successfully passed comprehensive energy legislation which included a significant increase in fuel economy standards. For far too long, this has been the third rail of energy policy. It has been one of Washington's great failures in leadership. But thanks to a bipartisan effort on the part of so many of my colleagues, these new requirements will cut automobile carbon emissions dramatically and will help put our country on a path toward energy dependence. The oil savings from the CAFE provision alone will ultimately total 1.2 million barrels per day by 2020. When we first established CAFE standards for passenger cars and trucks in 1975, within 10 years we increased fuel economy by 70 percent and decreased our oil dependence from 36 percent to 27 percent. Ever since then, we have been stuck in neutral. The fuel economy of the average new passenger vehicle is lower today than it was 10 years ago. We now have overcome the forces of inertia, and our country is now poised to at last revolutionize the way we drive. I am proud of the bipartisan commitment to this issue, which was demonstrated with historic vote. I particularly would like to thank my colleagues, Senator Inouye and Senator Stevens, for their leadership on this issue. I was proud to cast my vote in support of this important bipartisan energy legislation, which will dramatically increase our use of renewable fuels, incentivize energy efficiency, reduce our oil dependence, and address the growing threat of climate change. This bill truly puts us on a path toward a cleaner, healthier, and more secure energy future.

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. 1671, ``Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007,'' S. 1622 ``Small Business Venture Capital Act of 2007,'' and other pending business on Tuesday, June 26, 2007 at 10. a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to speak to the two amendments proposed yesterday, which invest in coal particularly as a transportation fuel and which threaten to increase the dangers of climate change rather than lessening them. These two amendments offer the Senate false choice: either to reduce our dependence on foreign oil or to worsen the rise of global climate change. But the truth is, we don't have to choose between our security at home and the security of our planet. Energy policy today is more critical than ever because it touches on not one but two of our most vital national interests: namely, energy security and climate change. We cannot afford to sacrifice our fight against climate change at the altar of energy independence. Promoting the conversion of domestic coal to liquefied fuel will dramatically increase CO2 emissions and that is no better than robbing Peter to pay Paul. The truth is, we can break the stranglehold of foreign oil, we can create new jobs in energy, and we can strengthen our hand addressing global climate change and we shouldn't settle for approaches that don't help us achieve all three of these national imperatives. Here's what scientists are telling us: On nearly a weekly basis, we see mounting scientific evidence highlighting the need to act. The most recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change written by more than 600 scientists, reviewed by another 600 experts, and edited by officials from 154 governments has confirmed the threat and the need for urgent action. Because it will set back the fight against climate change, coal to liquids offers us--at best--a Pyrrhic victory in our struggle to create a sensible, sustainable energy policy. Study after study has shown that liquid fuels derived from coal produce significantly higher CO2 emissions than traditional fuels. Transforming coal into liquid fuel involves heating it to 1,000 degrees and mixing it with water to create a gas, which is then converted into fuel usable in cars and jets. If that sounds like an energy-intensive process, it is. And energy-intensive processes generate a lot of CO2 emissions. Every gallon of liquid fuels derived from coal produces up to 2.5 times more well-to-wheels global warming emissions than gasoline or diesel fuel from crude oil. That means that even with 85 percent capture of CO2 during production, well-to-wheels Coal to Liquid emissions are 19-25 percent higher than conventional gasoline or diesel. I understand that all coal-to-liquids amendments are not created equal my Democratic coal State colleagues have attempted to build environmental safeguards into their amendments. And I thank them for that. The Bunning amendment, by contrast, is full of loopholes and hollow environmental mandates that crumble under scrutiny, leaving only big subsidies for big coal. But ultimately neither should pass. This is a question of priorities, and with limited Federal dollars available, we need to support those technologies that promise the greatest oil savings and the greatest emissions reductions. We should be turning to increased fuel economy standards, increased energy efficiency standards for commercial and residential buildings, strong renewable electricity standards, and incentives for biofuels and advanced vehicles. Let me repeat--this is a question of priorities. I would like to briefly address several of the arguments that are being made by coal-to-liquids industry supporters. These arguments are intended to confuse what is a very complicated process. I will do my best to unmask their arguments and make the reality as clear as possible. First, many proponents cite the emissions reductions associated with coprocessing coal and biomass at coal-to-liquids production facilities. However, these benefits simply come from using a promising new clean technology to mask the flaws of coal. These coprocessing facilities, when equipped with carbon capture, may indeed result in lower emissions than traditional fuels, but this has nothing to do with the coal and everything to do with the biomass. We should be having a serious conversation about biomass and how it can be best integrated into our energy supply, which is a matter of some large debate, rather than blindly buying into the coal industry's assumption that coprocessing biomass and coal is the most direct road to a clean energy future. Second, proponents focus on tailpipe emissions and argue that diesel fuel produced from coal-to-liquids has fewer emissions than traditional gasoline. Again, we need to make sure we are comparing apples to apples. The tremendous increase in well-to-wheels CO2 emissions comes during the production process, not at the point of tailpipe emissions. In fact, tailpipe emissions from diesel generated from crude oil and diesel generated from coal are roughly the same. Same story with gasoline generated from crude oil and gasoline generated from coal. Comparing diesel to gasoline is just a distraction diesel engines are more efficient than gasoline engines and therefore emit less CO2, regardless of whether you are talking about traditional fuels or coal-to-liquids Third, proponents talk about the environmental benefits associated with coal-to-liquids. This is frankly laughable. I have spoken about the doubling of emissions associated with the coal-to-liquids production process. But if we are talking about the environmental impacts of coal mining, we have to look even beyond the emissions and consider the severe impacts to water quality. In Appalachia alone, mountaintop removal has destroyed more than 2,500 mountain peaks and leveled more than 1 million acres. This waste is dumped into river valleys and contaminates over 1,200 rivers and streams throughout the region. That waste, combined with acidic mine runoff, destroys habitat for fish and wildlife everywhere that coal is mined today. Before we jump-start a new industry in this country and ramp up coal production, we need to have a serious conversation about these and other impacts. There are too many unknowns associated with coal-to-liquids technology, but here is what we do know: well-to-wheel emissions are two and a half times those of traditional fuels, and even when carbon capture is applied which has not yet been demonstrated on a commercial scale emissions are 19-25 percent greater than traditional fuels. The cost of these plants is exorbitant MIT estimates that the cost of constructing a coal-to-liquids plant is four times that of a traditional refinery. The same study estimated that it would cost $70 billion to build enough plants to replace 10 percent of American gasoline consumption. Finally, I would like to close by saying a few words on another issue that will be coming to a vote later this afternoon. Senators Cardin and Mikulski have introduced an amendment addressing the siting of liquefied natural gas terminals. This is an important amendment, and I am proud to support and cosponsor it. This is a contentious issue in Fall River, MA, where powerful interests are fighting to construct a LNG terminal far too close to a major population center. This proposal is strongly opposed by Governor Patrick and numerous State and Federal representatives. I strongly support Senators Cardin and Mikulski's amendment, which would require state approval of LNG siting decisions. While LNG is an important part of our clean energy mix, it is essential that these facilities be sited in safe and appropriate locations. This amendment guarantees the state its appropriate and necessary role in approving these decisions. I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to introduce today with Ranking Member Senator Snowe the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague from Maine on the issues facing the Nation's small businesses, and I believe that we have taken another step in the right direction with this bill. The Entrepreneurial Development Act reauthorizes and expands the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurial development programs. In particular, it supports women and minority small business ownership opportunities by boosting Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, SCORE, and other counseling and assistance programs. Investing in these core small business assistance programs is critical to creating jobs and boosting our economy. In Massachusetts alone, SBDCs served over 8,500 entrepreneurs last year and our Center for Women and Enterprise has generated 15,000 jobs over the last 10 years. These programs will not only help our entrepreneurs succeed today, but they will build the next generation of small business owners too. We have long supported these kinds of improvements and many of the provisions in the bill unanimously passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last Congress. The bill takes a number of steps to improve the Women's Business Center grant program through streamlining paperwork and increased oversight, and also promoting greater consultation between the National Women's Business Council, the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise and Women's Business Centers. This increased communication between the different groups will help them provide the most effective and efficient assistance to women-owned small businesses. The bill also creates a Native American small business development program, an Office of Native American Affairs within the Small Business Administration, SBA, and a Native American grant pilot program to foster increased employment and expansion of small businesses in Indian Country through business counseling services. According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, the American Indian and Alaska Native community is one of the fastest growing business groups in the country. Yet nearly 25 percent of the country's American Indian and Alaska Native populations live in poverty. There are huge small business opportunities just waiting to be tapped in Indian Country. We should be building on the energy and excitement among Native American entrepreneurs with more support from the federal government, and that's exactly what we intend to do. In addition, the bill creates several pilot programs that will help to deal with some of the most important issues facing small businesses. First, the bill establishes a pilot program to assist small businesses in complying with Federal and State laws and regulations. Reducing redtape for small businesses has always been one of my top priorities for the committee. We must help small firms navigate the labyrinthine regulatory system because compliance is critical to their success and their continued contribution to our economy. I'm committed to seeing that small businesses have every tool available--from guides to direct compliance assistance and counseling to assist them along the way. In addition, this bill seeks to address the small business health insurance crisis through a competitive, pilot grant program for SBDCs to provide counseling and resources to small businesses about health insurance options in their communities. I have heard time and time again from small business owners that their number one concern is the high cost of health insurance. At least 27 million Americans working for small businesses don't have health insurance. That means that 27 million Americans are one slip, illness or emergency room visit away from disaster. We must do everything we can to help them. Finally, the bill creates a Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation pilot program to provide competitive grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges to create a curricula focused on entrepreneurship. The goal of this program is to target students in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Traditionally, minority- owned businesses are disproportionately represented in the service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students will help expand business ownership beyond the service sectors to higher growth technical and financial sectors. One of our Nation's greatest assets is our diversity and investing in minority businesses only helps to increase the value of that asset. Unfortunately, investment in our minority business community has been sorely lacking. For example, in Massachusetts, minorities make up about 15 percent of our population, but they own only about 5 percent of the businesses and account for just 1.4 percent of sales. These statistics demonstrate why programs like the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation pilot program are so important to the future minority business leaders of tomorrow. Making this investment will ensure that we will have enough entrepreneurs from all sectors of our Nation to keep our economy competitive and strong. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes before the full Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am pleased to introduce today with Ranking Member Senator Snowe the Entrepreneurial Development Act of 2007. As always, I appreciate the opportunity to work with my colleague from Maine on the issues facing the Nation's small businesses, and I believe that we have taken another step in the right direction with this bill. The Entrepreneurial Development Act reauthorizes and expands the Small Business Administration's entrepreneurial development programs. In particular, it supports women and minority small business ownership opportunities by boosting Small Business Development Centers, Women's Business Centers, SCORE, and other counseling and assistance programs. Investing in these core small business assistance programs is critical to creating jobs and boosting our economy. In Massachusetts alone, SBDCs served over 8,500 entrepreneurs last year and our Center for Women and Enterprise has generated 15,000 jobs over the last 10 years. These programs will not only help our entrepreneurs succeed today, but they will build the next generation of small business owners too. We have long supported these kinds of improvements and many of the provisions in the bill unanimously passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship last Congress. The bill takes a number of steps to improve the Women's Business Center grant program through streamlining paperwork and increased oversight, and also promoting greater consultation between the National Women's Business Council, the Interagency Committee on Women's Business Enterprise and Women's Business Centers. This increased communication between the different groups will help them provide the most effective and efficient assistance to women-owned small businesses. The bill also creates a Native American small business development program, an Office of Native American Affairs within the Small Business Administration, SBA, and a Native American grant pilot program to foster increased employment and expansion of small businesses in Indian Country through business counseling services. According to the SBA's Office of Advocacy, the American Indian and Alaska Native community is one of the fastest growing business groups in the country. Yet nearly 25 percent of the country's American Indian and Alaska Native populations live in poverty. There are huge small business opportunities just waiting to be tapped in Indian Country. We should be building on the energy and excitement among Native American entrepreneurs with more support from the federal government, and that's exactly what we intend to do. In addition, the bill creates several pilot programs that will help to deal with some of the most important issues facing small businesses. First, the bill establishes a pilot program to assist small businesses in complying with Federal and State laws and regulations. Reducing redtape for small businesses has always been one of my top priorities for the committee. We must help small firms navigate the labyrinthine regulatory system because compliance is critical to their success and their continued contribution to our economy. I'm committed to seeing that small businesses have every tool available--from guides to direct compliance assistance and counseling to assist them along the way. In addition, this bill seeks to address the small business health insurance crisis through a competitive, pilot grant program for SBDCs to provide counseling and resources to small businesses about health insurance options in their communities. I have heard time and time again from small business owners that their number one concern is the high cost of health insurance. At least 27 million Americans working for small businesses don't have health insurance. That means that 27 million Americans are one slip, illness or emergency room visit away from disaster. We must do everything we can to help them. Finally, the bill creates a Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation pilot program to provide competitive grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges to create a curricula focused on entrepreneurship. The goal of this program is to target students in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Traditionally, minority- owned businesses are disproportionately represented in the service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students will help expand business ownership beyond the service sectors to higher growth technical and financial sectors. One of our Nation's greatest assets is our diversity and investing in minority businesses only helps to increase the value of that asset. Unfortunately, investment in our minority business community has been sorely lacking. For example, in Massachusetts, minorities make up about 15 percent of our population, but they own only about 5 percent of the businesses and account for just 1.4 percent of sales. These statistics demonstrate why programs like the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation pilot program are so important to the future minority business leaders of tomorrow. Making this investment will ensure that we will have enough entrepreneurs from all sectors of our Nation to keep our economy competitive and strong. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it when it comes before the full Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in March of this year, I convened a hearing in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to look at what small businesses can do to confront global warming. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put forward a report that has been referred to as ``the smoking gun'' on global warming, written by more than 600 scientists, reviewed by another 600 experts, and edited by officials from 154 governments, the report provides indisputable evidence that the ice caps are melting, the sea level is rising, and the earth's surface is heating up at an alarming and potentially catastrophic rate. Senator Snowe and I have worked together on a number of initiatives to combat global warming, including introducing the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007, an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent by the year 2050. Today, we continue this partnership as chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by introducing the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. There are nearly 26 million small businesses in this country, nearly 26 million business owners that are focused on keeping their doors open and putting food on the table for their families. And while climate change and national energy security sometimes seem like distant threats compared to rising health care costs and staying competitive in an increasingly global economy, small business owners are telling us that energy costs are indeed a concern. The National Small Business Association recently conducted a poll of its members, asking how energy prices affected their business decisions. Seventy-five percent said that energy prices had at least a moderate effect on their businesses, with roughly the same number saying that reducing energy costs would increase their profitability. Despite these numbers, only 33 percent have invested in energy efficient programs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that small businesses consume roughly 30 percent of the commercial energy consumed in this country, that is roughly 2 trillion kBtu of energy per year, and it is costing small business concerns approximately $29 million a year. Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, and add to their bottom line all at the same time. The Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 seeks to assist small business owners in doing all of these things. First, the bill requires the Small Business Administration, SBA, to implement an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. To date, the SBA has dragged its feet in implementing a program that could help small business owners to become more energy efficient. Administrator Preston should implement this important program today, and this bill directs him to do so. Second, the bill establishes a program to increase energy efficiency through energy audits at Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs. The Pennsylvania SBDC currently operates a similar program, and has successfully assisted hundreds of businesses to become more energy efficient. As a result of the program, six of the eight winners of the 2006 ENERGY STAR Small Business Awards given by the EPA went to Pennsylvania businesses. This program should be replicated so that small businesses across the country have the same opportunity to cut energy costs through the efficiency measures. In addition, this bill authorizes the Administrator to guarantee on- bill financing agreements between businesses and utility companies, to cover a utility company's risk in entering into such an agreement. The federal government should encourage utility companies to pursue these agreements with businesses, where an electric utility will cover the up-front costs of implementing energy efficiency measures, and a business will repay these costs through the savings realized in their energy bill. This bill also encourages telecommuting through a pilot program at SBA. The Administrator is authorized to establish a program that produces educational materials and performs outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting. Finally, the bill encourages increased innovation by providing a priority status within the SBIR and STTR programs that ensures high priority be given to small business concerns participating in energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects. As a Nation, we have much to do to secure our future energy supply and to solve the international crisis that is global warming. This bill represents one step in that process--to engage our small business owners in this effort, and to assist them in becoming more aware of what is possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank Senator Snowe for her work in this area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to increase access to venture capital for small businesses. This type of financing is essential to grow a company, but it's hard to come by, particularly for start-up firms. The Small Business Administration, SBA, has played an important role in filling this gap for almost 50 years with the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program. Since the SBIC program's inception in 1958, SBIC firms have invested $48 billion in more than 100,000 small businesses. For fiscal year 2006 alone, 30 percent of all SBIC investment dollars went to companies that had been in business for two years or less. Overall in that year, SBIC financing supported more than 2,000 small businesses which employed a total of 286,000 Americans. Many extremely successful companies that received their start from SBIC financing are now household names: Intel, Federal Express, Jenny Craig, and Outback Steakhouse are all SBIC success stories. Companies receiving SBIC financing have also consistently appeared on a variety of prominent business lists, including Inc. 500, BusinessWeek's ``Hot Growth Companies'' and ``Hot Growth Hall of Fame,'' Fortune magazine's ``Best Companies to Work For'' and ``Most Admired Companies,'' and the FSB 100. And they provide tens of thousands of jobs and contribute significantly to our Federal and local tax bases, paying back the investment many times over. Given the important contribution SBIC funds have made to our economy, our bill reauthorizes the SBIC program for another 3 years, through 2010, ensuring the continued availability of this important small business financing tool. Additionally, the legislation simplifies the program's regulations to attract new investors and allow existing investors to increase their involvement. These provisions will ensure that dependable capital is available for small businesses for years to come. Entrepreneurs may start out small, but the contribution they make to our economy is huge--and particularly important in underserved communities. This legislation will also increase the leverage cap for small businesses owned by women and minorities as well as those located in low-income areas. It will simplify existing incentives for investing in the smallest businesses in order to give every entrepreneur a fighting chance. Finally, we have included a provision which ensures that SBICs licensed under the participating securities program will be able to easily make follow-up investments in successful companies. Small businesses are responsible for more than two-thirds of all new jobs in America. They employ more than half of the private sector work force, and pump over $900 billion into the economy annually. As small business owners are living the American dream, they should be able to count on the government to help create an environment where they can do what they do best: innovate, compete, and create good jobs for Americans. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it when it comes before the full Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in addition to introducing a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, Senator Snowe and I are introducing a bill to extend the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, program. The Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, or the SEED Act, is important to states like Massachusetts and Maine. Both of our States are home to pioneers in the field of development venture capital, which uses the discipline of traditional venture investing to focus on economic development in low-income areas. We know the benefits of this type of investment and believe the model should be expanded to other parts of the country. Our support is not new. In my case, I was the sponsor of the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999, which created the New Markets Venture Capital program. Its purpose was to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses located in impoverished rural and urban areas or that employ low-income people. Both innovative and fiscally sound, this program was built on two of the Small Business Administration's most popular programs. It developed a financial structure similar to that of the successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, mentioned earlier, while also incorporating a technical assistance component similar to that of SBA's microloan program. However, unlike the SBIC program, which focuses on small businesses with high-growth potential, the New Markets Venture Capital program focuses on small businesses that show promise of both financial and social returns--what is referred to as a ``double bottom line.'' These businesses have special needs, and they tend to want intensive, ongoing financial, management and marketing assistance, be higher risk, and need longer periods to pay back money than SBIC investments. However, they more than balance out the equation by providing good, stable jobs and creating wealth in our neediest communities. Unfortunately, the program expired in 2006, and it has been operating under temporary authority since then. The SEED Act seeks to reauthorize, expand, and improve this important program. First, the bill will reauthorize the program for the next 3 years until 2010, making it possible for the SBA to license up to 20 more New Markets Venture Capital funds. Those funds will have the potential to invest $250 million in small businesses in low-income areas, by leveraging $150 million in debentures. Building on experiences with this program and the Rural Business Investment Company Program, which proved the matching requirement unreasonable and inefficient, the bill changes the operational assistance grants so that firms can get up to $1 million in funding in order to provide the companies they invest in with management assistance services. This support is absolutely necessary to make their business a success. Also important to making future funds successful, we have clarified that new markets venture capital companies have two years to raise their private capital. The committee has been troubled by the Agency's interpretation of the NMVC statute, which they viewed as giving SBA the authority to choose how much time it can give conditionally approved NMVCs to raise private- sector matching money. The chosen time frames were unreasonable and not what Congress intended. This bill clarifies that they get the full 2 years to raise the money. The bill also establishes an office of new markets venture capital so that there are resources devoted to its management and oversight, something lacking in past years. And to try to expand the reach of development capital in other parts of the country, the bill requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license funds in each of the Agency's ten regions, so that there is diversity. And it requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license a fund that focuses on investments in small manufacturers, as a way to help stem the loss of manufacturing in this country. On behalf of the Nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in March of this year, I convened a hearing in the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to look at what small businesses can do to confront global warming. In February, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change put forward a report that has been referred to as ``the smoking gun'' on global warming, written by more than 600 scientists, reviewed by another 600 experts, and edited by officials from 154 governments, the report provides indisputable evidence that the ice caps are melting, the sea level is rising, and the earth's surface is heating up at an alarming and potentially catastrophic rate. Senator Snowe and I have worked together on a number of initiatives to combat global warming, including introducing the Global Warming Reduction Act of 2007, an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 65 percent by the year 2050. Today, we continue this partnership as chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by introducing the Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007. There are nearly 26 million small businesses in this country, nearly 26 million business owners that are focused on keeping their doors open and putting food on the table for their families. And while climate change and national energy security sometimes seem like distant threats compared to rising health care costs and staying competitive in an increasingly global economy, small business owners are telling us that energy costs are indeed a concern. The National Small Business Association recently conducted a poll of its members, asking how energy prices affected their business decisions. Seventy-five percent said that energy prices had at least a moderate effect on their businesses, with roughly the same number saying that reducing energy costs would increase their profitability. Despite these numbers, only 33 percent have invested in energy efficient programs. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that small businesses consume roughly 30 percent of the commercial energy consumed in this country, that is roughly 2 trillion kBtu of energy per year, and it is costing small business concerns approximately $29 million a year. Through efforts to increase energy efficiency, small businesses can contribute to America's energy security, help to combat global warming, and add to their bottom line all at the same time. The Small Business Energy Efficiency Act of 2007 seeks to assist small business owners in doing all of these things. First, the bill requires the Small Business Administration, SBA, to implement an energy efficiency program that was mandated in the 2005 Energy Policy Act. To date, the SBA has dragged its feet in implementing a program that could help small business owners to become more energy efficient. Administrator Preston should implement this important program today, and this bill directs him to do so. Second, the bill establishes a program to increase energy efficiency through energy audits at Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs. The Pennsylvania SBDC currently operates a similar program, and has successfully assisted hundreds of businesses to become more energy efficient. As a result of the program, six of the eight winners of the 2006 ENERGY STAR Small Business Awards given by the EPA went to Pennsylvania businesses. This program should be replicated so that small businesses across the country have the same opportunity to cut energy costs through the efficiency measures. In addition, this bill authorizes the Administrator to guarantee on- bill financing agreements between businesses and utility companies, to cover a utility company's risk in entering into such an agreement. The federal government should encourage utility companies to pursue these agreements with businesses, where an electric utility will cover the up-front costs of implementing energy efficiency measures, and a business will repay these costs through the savings realized in their energy bill. This bill also encourages telecommuting through a pilot program at SBA. The Administrator is authorized to establish a program that produces educational materials and performs outreach to small businesses on the benefits of telecommuting. Finally, the bill encourages increased innovation by providing a priority status within the SBIR and STTR programs that ensures high priority be given to small business concerns participating in energy efficiency or renewable energy system research and development projects. As a Nation, we have much to do to secure our future energy supply and to solve the international crisis that is global warming. This bill represents one step in that process--to engage our small business owners in this effort, and to assist them in becoming more aware of what is possible. I urge my colleagues to support this bill, and I thank Senator Snowe for her work in this area. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation with my colleague, Senator Snowe, to increase access to venture capital for small businesses. This type of financing is essential to grow a company, but it's hard to come by, particularly for start-up firms. The Small Business Administration, SBA, has played an important role in filling this gap for almost 50 years with the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program. Since the SBIC program's inception in 1958, SBIC firms have invested $48 billion in more than 100,000 small businesses. For fiscal year 2006 alone, 30 percent of all SBIC investment dollars went to companies that had been in business for two years or less. Overall in that year, SBIC financing supported more than 2,000 small businesses which employed a total of 286,000 Americans. Many extremely successful companies that received their start from SBIC financing are now household names: Intel, Federal Express, Jenny Craig, and Outback Steakhouse are all SBIC success stories. Companies receiving SBIC financing have also consistently appeared on a variety of prominent business lists, including Inc. 500, BusinessWeek's ``Hot Growth Companies'' and ``Hot Growth Hall of Fame,'' Fortune magazine's ``Best Companies to Work For'' and ``Most Admired Companies,'' and the FSB 100. And they provide tens of thousands of jobs and contribute significantly to our Federal and local tax bases, paying back the investment many times over. Given the important contribution SBIC funds have made to our economy, our bill reauthorizes the SBIC program for another 3 years, through 2010, ensuring the continued availability of this important small business financing tool. Additionally, the legislation simplifies the program's regulations to attract new investors and allow existing investors to increase their involvement. These provisions will ensure that dependable capital is available for small businesses for years to come. Entrepreneurs may start out small, but the contribution they make to our economy is huge--and particularly important in underserved communities. This legislation will also increase the leverage cap for small businesses owned by women and minorities as well as those located in low-income areas. It will simplify existing incentives for investing in the smallest businesses in order to give every entrepreneur a fighting chance. Finally, we have included a provision which ensures that SBICs licensed under the participating securities program will be able to easily make follow-up investments in successful companies. Small businesses are responsible for more than two-thirds of all new jobs in America. They employ more than half of the private sector work force, and pump over $900 billion into the economy annually. As small business owners are living the American dream, they should be able to count on the government to help create an environment where they can do what they do best: innovate, compete, and create good jobs for Americans. I thank Senator Snowe for joining me in introducing this bill, and I ask my colleagues to support it when it comes before the full Senate for consideration. Mr. President, I ask that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in addition to introducing a bill to reauthorize the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, Senator Snowe and I are introducing a bill to extend the New Markets Venture Capital, NMVC, program. The Securing Equity for the Economic Development of Low Income Areas Act of 2007, or the SEED Act, is important to states like Massachusetts and Maine. Both of our States are home to pioneers in the field of development venture capital, which uses the discipline of traditional venture investing to focus on economic development in low-income areas. We know the benefits of this type of investment and believe the model should be expanded to other parts of the country. Our support is not new. In my case, I was the sponsor of the Community Development and Venture Capital Act of 1999, which created the New Markets Venture Capital program. Its purpose was to stimulate economic development through public-private partnerships that invest venture capital in smaller businesses located in impoverished rural and urban areas or that employ low-income people. Both innovative and fiscally sound, this program was built on two of the Small Business Administration's most popular programs. It developed a financial structure similar to that of the successful Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, program, mentioned earlier, while also incorporating a technical assistance component similar to that of SBA's microloan program. However, unlike the SBIC program, which focuses on small businesses with high-growth potential, the New Markets Venture Capital program focuses on small businesses that show promise of both financial and social returns--what is referred to as a ``double bottom line.'' These businesses have special needs, and they tend to want intensive, ongoing financial, management and marketing assistance, be higher risk, and need longer periods to pay back money than SBIC investments. However, they more than balance out the equation by providing good, stable jobs and creating wealth in our neediest communities. Unfortunately, the program expired in 2006, and it has been operating under temporary authority since then. The SEED Act seeks to reauthorize, expand, and improve this important program. First, the bill will reauthorize the program for the next 3 years until 2010, making it possible for the SBA to license up to 20 more New Markets Venture Capital funds. Those funds will have the potential to invest $250 million in small businesses in low-income areas, by leveraging $150 million in debentures. Building on experiences with this program and the Rural Business Investment Company Program, which proved the matching requirement unreasonable and inefficient, the bill changes the operational assistance grants so that firms can get up to $1 million in funding in order to provide the companies they invest in with management assistance services. This support is absolutely necessary to make their business a success. Also important to making future funds successful, we have clarified that new markets venture capital companies have two years to raise their private capital. The committee has been troubled by the Agency's interpretation of the NMVC statute, which they viewed as giving SBA the authority to choose how much time it can give conditionally approved NMVCs to raise private- sector matching money. The chosen time frames were unreasonable and not what Congress intended. This bill clarifies that they get the full 2 years to raise the money. The bill also establishes an office of new markets venture capital so that there are resources devoted to its management and oversight, something lacking in past years. And to try to expand the reach of development capital in other parts of the country, the bill requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license funds in each of the Agency's ten regions, so that there is diversity. And it requires the SBA, to the extent practicable, to try and license a fund that focuses on investments in small manufacturers, as a way to help stem the loss of manufacturing in this country. On behalf of the Nation's small businesses and entrepreneurs, I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. Mr. President, I ask that the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a roundtable entitled ``SBA Reauthorization: Small Business Venture Capital Programs,'' on Thursday, June 21, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. permanent subcommittee on investigations

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last month, Americans emptied their wallets at the pump, paying record prices that reached $3.22 a gallon according to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. This price represented a 28-percent increase over a period of just 2 months, and 52-percent increase since the end of January. Rising prices underscore the increased attention that small business owners are paying to this issue. According to a survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, NSBA, 62 percent of small businesses use vehicles for delivery or customer transportation, and a majority of those who use vehicles travel more than 50 mile a day. According to the Energy Information Administration's June 12 update to the ``Short Term Energy Outlook,'' gas prices are expected to average $3.05 through the 2007 summer months, an increase of 21-cents over last summer's average price. Meanwhile, small businesses that operate close to the margin and that rely on vehicles every day to remain competitive are struggling to keep up. These are the same businesses coping with considerable increases in the cost of providing their employees health care, the same burgeoning entrepreneurs that we count on to create roughly two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. These businesses can no longer be expected to shoulder a burden created by a Government that has been reluctant to shift its priorities from serving the same old special interests. The good news is that right now, the Senate is debating legislation that would put the country on a clear path towards energy independence. In a single month, we could rewrite the shameful story of procrastination, manipulation and, most of all, failed leadership that has defined our energy policy for 30 years. Democrats in the Senate are working to develop a comprehensive energy policy that will make America safer and will stabilize and lower fuel costs for small businesses and all Americans. But in order to effectively address energy security, the final legislation must include three components: 1. a major increase in the efficiency of all sources and uses of energy, from pickup trucks to fluorescent light bulbs; 2. dramatic incentives for all renewable energy sources, including the requirement that at least 20 percent of our energy come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020; and 3. a comprehensive plan to get clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration off the drawing board and under construction. These are the first steps Congress must take to address the long term security and stability of this country's fuel supply. But there are other steps we can take in the short term to make sure our small businesses are protected against dramatic interruptions in fuel. Today, I am introducing legislation that creates an emergency fuel assistance program for small businesses in the event of a severe fuel interruption. Under this program, small businesses and farms that rely on fuel as a key operating cost would be eligible to receive grants to help them stay afloat during periods of extraordinarily high gas prices. This program could go a long way toward helping businesses operating close to the margin deal with costs that are beyond their control. Specifically, the Small Business Emergency Fuel Assistance Act of 2007 would create a program within the Economic Development Agency at the Department of Commerce to assist small businesses through State grants during declarations of fuel emergency. The program is triggered by a Presidential declaration of fuel emergency, and would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to give grants to States to provide assistance to fuel-dependent small businesses. Eligibility for these grants is restricted to businesses with fewer than 50 employees or less than $5 million in annual gross receipts. Furthermore, to ensure that these businesses are also contributing to America's energy conservation efforts, eligibility would be contingent upon a business having a plan to become more energy efficient. The program would be authorized at $100 million per year, for 5 years. For too long, we have asked Americans to put up with an energy supply that is unstable and flat out dangerous. The path to energy security, a path that is being cut in the Senate as we speak, will lead to stability and lower prices at the pump. In the meantime, this is a commonsense policy to aid our small business and small farm owners in the short term, so that they can continue to do what they do best, grow the American economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last month, Americans emptied their wallets at the pump, paying record prices that reached $3.22 a gallon according to the Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration. This price represented a 28-percent increase over a period of just 2 months, and 52-percent increase since the end of January. Rising prices underscore the increased attention that small business owners are paying to this issue. According to a survey conducted by the National Small Business Association, NSBA, 62 percent of small businesses use vehicles for delivery or customer transportation, and a majority of those who use vehicles travel more than 50 mile a day. According to the Energy Information Administration's June 12 update to the ``Short Term Energy Outlook,'' gas prices are expected to average $3.05 through the 2007 summer months, an increase of 21-cents over last summer's average price. Meanwhile, small businesses that operate close to the margin and that rely on vehicles every day to remain competitive are struggling to keep up. These are the same businesses coping with considerable increases in the cost of providing their employees health care, the same burgeoning entrepreneurs that we count on to create roughly two-thirds of the new jobs in this country. These businesses can no longer be expected to shoulder a burden created by a Government that has been reluctant to shift its priorities from serving the same old special interests. The good news is that right now, the Senate is debating legislation that would put the country on a clear path towards energy independence. In a single month, we could rewrite the shameful story of procrastination, manipulation and, most of all, failed leadership that has defined our energy policy for 30 years. Democrats in the Senate are working to develop a comprehensive energy policy that will make America safer and will stabilize and lower fuel costs for small businesses and all Americans. But in order to effectively address energy security, the final legislation must include three components: 1. a major increase in the efficiency of all sources and uses of energy, from pickup trucks to fluorescent light bulbs; 2. dramatic incentives for all renewable energy sources, including the requirement that at least 20 percent of our energy come from renewable sources like wind and solar by 2020; and 3. a comprehensive plan to get clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration off the drawing board and under construction. These are the first steps Congress must take to address the long term security and stability of this country's fuel supply. But there are other steps we can take in the short term to make sure our small businesses are protected against dramatic interruptions in fuel. Today, I am introducing legislation that creates an emergency fuel assistance program for small businesses in the event of a severe fuel interruption. Under this program, small businesses and farms that rely on fuel as a key operating cost would be eligible to receive grants to help them stay afloat during periods of extraordinarily high gas prices. This program could go a long way toward helping businesses operating close to the margin deal with costs that are beyond their control. Specifically, the Small Business Emergency Fuel Assistance Act of 2007 would create a program within the Economic Development Agency at the Department of Commerce to assist small businesses through State grants during declarations of fuel emergency. The program is triggered by a Presidential declaration of fuel emergency, and would authorize the Secretary of Commerce to give grants to States to provide assistance to fuel-dependent small businesses. Eligibility for these grants is restricted to businesses with fewer than 50 employees or less than $5 million in annual gross receipts. Furthermore, to ensure that these businesses are also contributing to America's energy conservation efforts, eligibility would be contingent upon a business having a plan to become more energy efficient. The program would be authorized at $100 million per year, for 5 years. For too long, we have asked Americans to put up with an energy supply that is unstable and flat out dangerous. The path to energy security, a path that is being cut in the Senate as we speak, will lead to stability and lower prices at the pump. In the meantime, this is a commonsense policy to aid our small business and small farm owners in the short term, so that they can continue to do what they do best, grow the American economy. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senators Baucus, Grassley and I, along with other Finance Committee members, are introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. Earlier in the year, Senator Smith and I introduced the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would help those who are valiantly serving their country and the families that they leave behind. The Defenders of Freedom on Tax Relief Act of 2007 includes several provisions from the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. It also includes additional provisions to help military families and veterans who often struggle financially. The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. Currently, there are over 149,700 military personnel serving in Iraq. There are approximately 22,100 U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are reservists and have been called to active duty, frequently for multiple tours. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up and to replace them with temporary employees. I applaud the businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same. In January, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or are employed by a small business. We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended consequences the call up of reservists is having on small businesses. According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long call ups and redeployments have made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian soldiers. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to small businesses to assist with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees when they are called to active duty. A similar provision is included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military pay subject to Federal income tax withholding. In addition, with respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of the employer making the payment, and allows the differential military pay to be treated as compensation. These provisions are included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayer to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned-income tax credit, EITC. Without this provision some military families would no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is currently not taxable. Last Congress, Senator Smith and I introduced the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act, which we have incorporated into the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act. This provision provides tax relief for the death gratuity payment that is given to families who have lost a loved one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred saving accounts that help with saving for retirement. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would allow military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. A similar provision is included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their valor by taking care of those they leave behind. Helping ease the tax burden on the death gratuity will enable military families to save more for retirement. These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and their families at home as well as abroad.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senators Baucus, Grassley and I, along with other Finance Committee members, are introducing the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. Earlier in the year, Senator Smith and I introduced the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007, which would help those who are valiantly serving their country and the families that they leave behind. The Defenders of Freedom on Tax Relief Act of 2007 includes several provisions from the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. It also includes additional provisions to help military families and veterans who often struggle financially. The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. Currently, there are over 149,700 military personnel serving in Iraq. There are approximately 22,100 U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are reservists and have been called to active duty, frequently for multiple tours. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up and to replace them with temporary employees. I applaud the businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same. In January, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or are employed by a small business. We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended consequences the call up of reservists is having on small businesses. According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long call ups and redeployments have made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian soldiers. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to small businesses to assist with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees when they are called to active duty. A similar provision is included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military pay subject to Federal income tax withholding. In addition, with respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of the employer making the payment, and allows the differential military pay to be treated as compensation. These provisions are included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayer to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned-income tax credit, EITC. Without this provision some military families would no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is currently not taxable. Last Congress, Senator Smith and I introduced the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act, which we have incorporated into the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act. This provision provides tax relief for the death gratuity payment that is given to families who have lost a loved one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred saving accounts that help with saving for retirement. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would allow military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. A similar provision is included in the Defenders of Freedom Tax Relief Act of 2007. Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their valor by taking care of those they leave behind. Helping ease the tax burden on the death gratuity will enable military families to save more for retirement. These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and their families at home as well as abroad.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would like to inform Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``The Impact of Rising Gas Prices on America's Small Businesses,'' on Thursday, June 14, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to pay tribute to a fallen pillar of the movement to extend equal opportunity to thousands of African-American and minority businesses throughout our Nation: Congressman Parren J. Mitchell. With the passing of former Congressman Mitchell on May 28, 2007, our country has lost one of its legendary advocates for minority business owners, a giant who knew that the struggle for civil rights and equal opportunity would be decided in America's board rooms as well as its voting booths and lunch counters. Congressman Mitchell fought with heart, grit, integrity, and determination to level the playing field so more minority firms could do business with the Federal Government. He didn't just serve as chairman of the House Small Business Committee, he served as Congress's conscience. He also was founder and chairman of the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund. Congressman Mitchell's life was an incredible story of courage and resolve. He became the first African-American graduate student at the University of Maryland when he challenged the university's policy of segregation. He was the first African American elected to Congress from the State of Maryland. He was the first African American elected to Congress who lived below the Mason-Dixon line since 1898. And he was the first African American to chair the House Small Business Committee. Congressman Mitchell's work on that committee has left a legacy that is as long and impressive as his commitment to equal opportunity for all of our nation's citizens. Many of his policies made it possible for the rise of the minority business community. In 1976, he attached an amendment to a public works bill stipulating that cities and States receiving Federal grants had to award 10 percent of the money to minority-owned businesses. That year he also managed to pass a law requiring contractors to document their goals in contracting with minority-owned companies. In 1980, he was able to successfully amend the Surface Transportation Assistance Act to require 10 percent of the money to be set aside for minority businesses. On May 22, 2007, in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship we held a hearing to look at the state of minority small businesses. And while the witnesses at the hearing revealed that there have been many gains for minority businesses, they also revealed that there is still more that needs to be done. I believe that the accomplishments of those who testified at the hearing would have made Congressman Mitchell proud. I also believe that the testimony about discriminatory practices that still confront minority businesses would have confirmed for him as it did for me that there are still more hills to climb. The challenge now is to climb those hills by creating opportunities for minority businesses that will do justice to the memory of Congressman Mitchell. As we move forward in the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, the best way to do that is to pass laws that expand opportunities for all Americans who have been shut out or left behind.