John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. That is what I said.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I interrupt my friend from Oklahoma and reclaim my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, again, the Senator is making my point. I conceded there are studies that will assert there is some change of a variation of what may or may not be happening but none that suggests it is not happening as a result of our activity or that it is not happening. The Senator talks about this .07-of-a-degree change. What he says is a reduction. But what we are looking at is an automatic increase in rate of increase that is going to occur no matter what. So somebody can doubt whether you are going to have a reduction. That is not the point. The point is, there is going to be a level of increase that goes up to a percentage which varies from about 2 degrees centigrade to 3 degrees centigrade, up to 7.7 degrees Fahrenheit. And .07 of a degree from that is not going to make a difference with respect to the fundamental issue of the Earth warming. So again, let's debate apples and apples, not something else. I think that is important in this debate. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield my time, except for 1 minute for the chairman of the committee.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is becoming more difficult for a middle class family to purchase a home. Last week the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on middle class economic issues. We learned from the witnesses that families are struggling because their fixed costs are greater and one of these fixed costs is housing. Professor Elizabeth Warren testified that houses purchased now are only slightly larger than those purchased in the 1970's, but the median mortgage payment is 76 percent larger than a generation ago. Today, there are serious problems in our mortgage lending market which need to be addressed. Too many families are unable to make the monthly mortgage payments on their homes. Foreclosure rates are increasing. Some homeowners who are facing foreclosure have received what are known as ``subprime'' loans which allow an adjustable rate of mortgage interest or a break on payments during the first years of the mortgage. The ``subprime'' lending market has been an important tool to allow people with poor credit histories to obtain access to credit including mortgages. However, in recent years some lenders have used these ``subprime'' mortgage loans to put homeowners into mortgage products with high interest rates that increase after a short period of time. Additionally, some homeowners have opted to buy homes they could not afford by using the ``subprime'' loan market. In either case, too many homeowners have been unable to keep up with the changes in their mortgage payments and have been forced into foreclosure. Last year, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had a record 19,487 foreclosure filings. One of every 92 U.S. households faced foreclosure and there are expected to be more disclosures in 2007. Published reports show that Massachusetts has had approximately 10,000 foreclosures filings already this year. Monthly payments on millions of loans are expected to increase dramatically as low introductory interest rates balloon as much as 50 percent. The Nonprofit Center for Responsible Lending predicts that one in five subprime mortgages done in the past 2 years will end up in foreclosure. Today, Senators Stabenow, Voinovich and I are introducing the Mortgage Relief Cancellation Act of 2007. This legislation will help families who are faced with mortgages that they are unable to pay. Fortunately, some lenders are willing to modify loans and forgive some debt, but the borrower is required to pay income tax on the cancelled debt. Under present law, the discharged debt is treated as income. Some homeowners are learning about this rule the hard way and find themselves owing a large tax bill on debt that was forgiven. The Mortgage Relief Cancellation Act of 2007 would exclude from income the debt that is forgiven for certain mortgage loans. An example of this is a situation in which a homeowner sells their house to prevent disclosure and the proceeds do not cover the full mortgage obligation. The lender agrees to forgive the difference. Under the Mortgage Relief Cancellation Act of 2007, the amount forgiven would not be included in taxable income. This legislation also addresses forgiveness of debt as part of a restructuring arrangement. I urge you to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to announce that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``Minority Entrepreneurship: Assessing the Effectiveness of SBA's Programs for the Minority Business Community,'' on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building. subcommittee on energy

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would like to inform the Members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a public markup of S. 1256 ``Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvements Act of 2007'' on Wednesday, May 16, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today it is my pleasure to congratulate and honor two young Massachusetts students who have achieved national recognition for exemplary volunteer service in their communities. Alyssa Bickoff of Brookline and David Poritz of Amherst have been named State honorees in the 2007 Prudential Spirit of Community awards program. One high school student and one middle school student from each State are honored annually. Alyssa Bickoff, an eighth-grader at Solomon Schechter Day School in Newton, is being honored for her efforts in raising nearly $25,000 to help find a cure for ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease. Alyssa's father lost a best friend to the neuromuscular disease, which motivated her commitment to help raise money to fund the research necessary to find a cure. Alyssa raised this money by selling specially inscribed wristbands and participating in fundraising walks. The money that Alyssa raised has been used not only to fund research, but has also purchased wheelchairs and mobility items for patients. Alyssa's story is a true example of hope for a brighter America. David Poritz, a senior at Amherst Regional High School, is recognized for founding a nonprofit organization dedicated to helping communities adversely affected by oil contamination in the Amazon River basin of Ecuador. David researched cases involving oil contamination in Ecuador. He spent a month learning to speak Spanish fluently, and then organized a drive throughout New England collecting 12,500 pairs of shoes for children in Ecuador. Since then, David's organization, Esperanza International, Inc., has raised money to furnish educational materials to impoverished schools, and provide medical supplies and support to local clinics. He has guided groups of students and teachers to the Ecuadorian jungle, spoken with Ecuadorian cancer patients, and served as a liaison for doctors and other medical specialists visiting the area. David believes in the importance of reaching out and helping those in need. His attitude and dedication to help the people of Ecuador is highly commendable and inspiring to other young Americans. In light of numerous statistics that indicate that Americans today are less involved in their communities than they once were, it is vital that we encourage and support the kind of selfless contributions both of these young people have made. People of all ages need to think about how we, as individual citizens, can work together at the local level to ensure the health and vitality of our towns and neighborhoods. Young volunteers like David and Alyssa are inspiring examples to all of us, and are among our brightest hopes for a better tomorrow. The program that brought these young role models to our attention-- The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards--was created by Prudential Financial in partnership with the National Association of Secondary School Principals in 1995 to impress upon all youth volunteers that their contributions are critically important and highly valued, and to inspire other young people to follow their example. Over the past 11 years, the program has become the Nation's largest youth recognition effort based solely on community service, and has honored more than 75,000 young volunteers at the local, State and national level. Both Alyssa Bickoff and David Poritz should be extremely proud to have been singled out from the thousands of dedicated volunteers who participated in this year's program. As part of their recognition, they will come to Washington in early May, along with 100 other 2007 Spirit of Community honorees from across the country, for several days of special events, including visits to their Senators' offices on Capitol Hill. I applaud both of them for their initiative in seeking to make their communities better places to live, and for the positive impact they have had on the lives of others. I also would like to salute other young people in my State who were named Distinguished Finalists by The Prudential Spirit of Community Awards for their outstanding volunteer service. They are: Matthew Chase of Dover-Sherborn High School in Dover, Kelsey Chisholm of Lynnfield High School in Lynnfield, Cieu Lan Dong of Cambridge, Elizabeth Handel of Needham High School in Needham, Gregg Katz of Nipmuc Regional High School in Upton, and Courtney Mota, Dighton-Rehoboth Regional High School of Rehoboth. All of these young people have demonstrated a level of commitment and accomplishment that is truly extraordinary in today's world, and deserve our sincere admiration and respect. Their actions show that young Americans can--and do--play important roles in their communities, and that America's community spirit continues to hold tremendous promise for the future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007. Congressman Pascrell is introducing the companion measure in the House. Since 1975, the EITC has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. It should not have taken Hurricane Katrina to show what Census data has proven--- some Americans are not benefiting from our economic recovery. The poverty rate for 2005 was 12.6 percent, basically the same as the rate for 2004. In 2005, there were 37 million men, women and children living in poverty. One-quarter of all jobs in the United States do not pay enough to support a family of four above the poverty level. Hurricane Katrina affected many individuals who were already faced with difficult economic situations. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are the first, second, and eighth poorest States in the Nation respectively. The income of the typical household in these three States is well below the national average. In the hardest hit counties, 18.6 percent of the population is poor, compared with a national average of 12.5 percent. Time after time, the Republican controlled Congress passed tax cuts which are skewed towards those with the most. In 2003, some of the 2001 cuts were phased-in at a faster rate and this did not include adjustments to the EITC. The Urban Institute, Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center, reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year, the richest three-tenths of the population, receive an average tax cut of $118,000. These individuals do not have to worry about how they will have to pay for a roof over their heads or enough food for their families. We should not be focused on extending tax cuts which help those who do not have to worry about living pay check to pay check. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 6 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and permanently extending the provision which allows members of the armed forces to include combat pay as income for EITC computations. By making these changes, more individuals and families would benefit from the EITC. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. Under current law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. This legislation would create a new credit amount based on three or more children. Under current law, the maximum EITC for an individual with two or more children is $4,716 and under this legislation, the amount would increase to $5,306 for an individual with three or more children. The poverty level for an adult living with three children is $20,516. In total, 37 percent of all children live in families with at least three children and more than half of poor children live in such families. Under current law, an adult living with three children who is eligible for the maximum EITC with income equivalent to the phase-out income level would still have income below the poverty level. Under this legislation, an individual with three children and who is eligible for the full credit amount would be lifted above the poverty level by the amount of the credit. Increasing the credit amount would make more families eligible for the EITC. Currently, an individual with three children and income at and above $37,783 would not benefit from the credit. Under this legislation, an individual with children and income under $40,582 would benefit from the EITC. Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. Under current law, an individual without children and income just above the poverty level would owe more than $800 in Federal income and payroll taxes in 2007, even with the EITC. This calculation is based on just the employee's share of the payroll tax. If you include the employer's share this individual would owe more than $1,600 in taxes. The decline in the labor force of single men has been troubling. Boosting the EITC for childless workers could be part of solution for increasing work among this group. Increasing the EITC for families has increased labor rates for single mothers and hopefully, it can do the same for this group. This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayer and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $428 to $855. The doubling of the phase-out results in taxpayers in the same income range being eligible for the credit. Fourth, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 included a provision which would allow combat pay to be treated as earned income for purposes of computing the child credit. This provision expires at the end of the year. This legislation makes this provision permanent. There is no reason why a member of the armed services should lose their EITC when they are mobilized and serving their country. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. We are all aware of our fiscal situation and we should legislate in a responsible manner. It is a time for shared sacrifice. We cannot keep adding to the deficit, but we cannot leave the poor behind. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program is allowed the opportunity to fulfill its promise to the low-income children of this country. For 10 years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and affordable health insurance coverage that should be ensured to each and every American. Yet there is much work to be done, and the reauthorization of S-CHIP gives us the opportunity to expand these successful programs to as many of the 9 million uninsured children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled. But we must keep in mind that while expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our Nation's children are quality services that are there for them when they need them. When it comes to mental health coverage, that unfortunately is not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Kennedy, and Domenici, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP. Mental illness is a critical problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are startling: Mental disorders affect about one in five American children and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances that severely impact their functioning. And low-income children, those the S-CHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental health problems. Yet the sad reality is that an estimated two-thirds of all young people struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they need. We are failing our children when it comes to the treatment of mental health disorders and the consequences could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, untreated mental illness may also increase a child's risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, and children with mental disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide. Unfortunately, many States' S-CHIP programs are not providing the type of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our physicians to make the best judgments for our kids. The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical services. Your bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current law that authorizes States to lower the amount of mental health coverage they provide to children in SCHIP down to 75 percent of the coverage provided in the benchmark plans listed in the statute as models for States to use in developing their SCHIP plans. The mental health community is gathered in Washington today to mark National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Health care. America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of the S-CHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007. Congressman Pascrell is introducing the companion measure in the House. Since 1975, the EITC has been an innovative tax credit which helps low-income working families. President Reagan referred to the EITC as ``the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.'' According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the EITC lifts more children out of poverty than any other government program. It is time for us to reexamine the EITC and determine where we can strengthen it. It should not have taken Hurricane Katrina to show what Census data has proven--- some Americans are not benefiting from our economic recovery. The poverty rate for 2005 was 12.6 percent, basically the same as the rate for 2004. In 2005, there were 37 million men, women and children living in poverty. One-quarter of all jobs in the United States do not pay enough to support a family of four above the poverty level. Hurricane Katrina affected many individuals who were already faced with difficult economic situations. Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama are the first, second, and eighth poorest States in the Nation respectively. The income of the typical household in these three States is well below the national average. In the hardest hit counties, 18.6 percent of the population is poor, compared with a national average of 12.5 percent. Time after time, the Republican controlled Congress passed tax cuts which are skewed towards those with the most. In 2003, some of the 2001 cuts were phased-in at a faster rate and this did not include adjustments to the EITC. The Urban Institute, Brookings Institution's Tax Policy Center, reports that households with incomes of more than $1 million a year, the richest three-tenths of the population, receive an average tax cut of $118,000. These individuals do not have to worry about how they will have to pay for a roof over their heads or enough food for their families. We should not be focused on extending tax cuts which help those who do not have to worry about living pay check to pay check. We need to help the low-income workers who struggle day after day trying to make ends meet. They have been left behind in the economic policies of the last 6 years. We need to begin a discussion on how to help those that have been left behind. The EITC is the perfect place to start. The Strengthen the Earned Income Tax Credit Act of 2007 strengthens the EITC by making the following four changes: reducing the marriage penalty; increasing the credit for families with three or more children; expanding credit amount for individuals with no children; and permanently extending the provision which allows members of the armed forces to include combat pay as income for EITC computations. By making these changes, more individuals and families would benefit from the EITC. First, the legislation increases marriage penalty relief and makes it permanent. In the way that the EITC is currently structured, many single individuals that marry find themselves faced with a reduction in their EITC. The tax code should not penalize individuals who marry. Second, the legislation increases the credit for families with three or more children. Under current law, the credit amount is based on one child or two or more children. This legislation would create a new credit amount based on three or more children. Under current law, the maximum EITC for an individual with two or more children is $4,716 and under this legislation, the amount would increase to $5,306 for an individual with three or more children. The poverty level for an adult living with three children is $20,516. In total, 37 percent of all children live in families with at least three children and more than half of poor children live in such families. Under current law, an adult living with three children who is eligible for the maximum EITC with income equivalent to the phase-out income level would still have income below the poverty level. Under this legislation, an individual with three children and who is eligible for the full credit amount would be lifted above the poverty level by the amount of the credit. Increasing the credit amount would make more families eligible for the EITC. Currently, an individual with three children and income at and above $37,783 would not benefit from the credit. Under this legislation, an individual with children and income under $40,582 would benefit from the EITC. Third, this legislation would increase the credit amount for childless workers. The EITC was designed to help childless workers offset their payroll tax liability. The credit phase-in was set to equal the employee share of the payroll tax, 7.65 percent. However, in reality, the employee bears the burden of both the employee and employer portion of the payroll tax. Under current law, an individual without children and income just above the poverty level would owe more than $800 in Federal income and payroll taxes in 2007, even with the EITC. This calculation is based on just the employee's share of the payroll tax. If you include the employer's share this individual would owe more than $1,600 in taxes. The decline in the labor force of single men has been troubling. Boosting the EITC for childless workers could be part of solution for increasing work among this group. Increasing the EITC for families has increased labor rates for single mothers and hopefully, it can do the same for this group. This legislation doubles the credit rate for individual taxpayer and married taxpayers without children. The credit rate and phase-out rate of 7.65 percent is doubled to 15.3 percent. For 2007, the maximum credit amount for an individual would increase from $428 to $855. The doubling of the phase-out results in taxpayers in the same income range being eligible for the credit. Fourth, the Working Families Tax Relief Act of 2004 included a provision which would allow combat pay to be treated as earned income for purposes of computing the child credit. This provision expires at the end of the year. This legislation makes this provision permanent. There is no reason why a member of the armed services should lose their EITC when they are mobilized and serving their country. This legislation will help those who most need our help. It will put more money in their pay check. We need to invest in our families and help individuals who want to make a living by working. We are all aware of our fiscal situation and we should legislate in a responsible manner. It is a time for shared sacrifice. We cannot keep adding to the deficit, but we cannot leave the poor behind. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my great hope that Congress will move this year to see that the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program is allowed the opportunity to fulfill its promise to the low-income children of this country. For 10 years it has provided, along with Medicaid, the type of meaningful and affordable health insurance coverage that should be ensured to each and every American. Yet there is much work to be done, and the reauthorization of S-CHIP gives us the opportunity to expand these successful programs to as many of the 9 million uninsured children in the country today, starting with the 6 million that are already eligible for public programs but not yet enrolled. But we must keep in mind that while expanding coverage to the uninsured is our top priority, it is equally important to ensure that the types of benefits offered to our Nation's children are quality services that are there for them when they need them. When it comes to mental health coverage, that unfortunately is not the case today. Therefore, I am introducing today, along with Senators Smith, Kennedy, and Domenici, the Children's Mental Health Parity Act which provides for equal coverage of mental health care for all children enrolled in the State Children's Health Insurance Plan, SCHIP. Mental illness is a critical problem for the young people in this country today. The numbers are startling: Mental disorders affect about one in five American children and up to 9 percent of kids experience serious emotional disturbances that severely impact their functioning. And low-income children, those the S-CHIP program is designed to cover, have the highest rates of mental health problems. Yet the sad reality is that an estimated two-thirds of all young people struggling with mental health disorders do not receive the care they need. We are failing our children when it comes to the treatment of mental health disorders and the consequences could not be more severe. Without early and effective intervention, affected children are less likely to do well in school and more likely to have compromised employment and earnings opportunities. Moreover, untreated mental illness may also increase a child's risk of coming into contact with the juvenile justice system, and children with mental disorders are at a much higher risk for suicide. Unfortunately, many States' S-CHIP programs are not providing the type of mental health care coverage that our most vulnerable children deserve. Many States impose discriminatory limits on mental health care coverage that do not apply to medical and surgical care. These can include caps on coverage of inpatient days and outpatient visits, as well as cost and testing restrictions that impair the ability of our physicians to make the best judgments for our kids. The Children's Mental Health Parity Act would prohibit discriminatory limits on mental health care in SCHIP plans by directing that any financial requirements or treatment limitations that apply to mental health or substance abuse services must be no more restrictive than the financial requirements or treatment limits that apply to other medical services. Your bill would also eliminate a harmful provision in current law that authorizes States to lower the amount of mental health coverage they provide to children in SCHIP down to 75 percent of the coverage provided in the benchmark plans listed in the statute as models for States to use in developing their SCHIP plans. The mental health community is gathered in Washington today to mark National Children's Mental Health Awareness Day and many of the leading advocacy groups have endorsed the Children's Mental Health Parity Act, including Mental Health America, the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Fight Crime: Invest in Kids, The National Association for Children's Behavioral Health, the National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems, and the National Council for Community Behavioral Health care. America's kids who are covered through SCHIP should be guaranteed that the mental health benefits they receive are just as comprehensive as those for medical and surgical care. It is no less important to care for our kids' mental health, and this unfair and unwise disparity should no longer be acceptable. As we debate many important features of the S-CHIP program during reauthorization, I look forward to working with Members on both sides of the aisle to see that this important, bipartisan measure receives the support that it deserves. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill bill and letters of support be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Smith, Conrad, Snowe, and Bingaman in introducing the Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007. This legislation comes on the heels of the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which makes improvements to the defined benefit pension plan system. The legislation that we are introducing today builds upon that legislation and focuses on defined contribution plans. Our pension system has shifted away from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. We should make it easier for employers to offer defined contribution plans and for individuals to participate in these plans. At a time when we have a negative savings rate that is the lowest since the Great Depression, we should provide appropriate incentives to help individuals save for retirement. In an effort to achieve this, the Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 focuses on increasing retirement savings, the preservation of income, equity in divorce, improving financial literacy, and encouraging small businesses to enter and remain in the employer retirement plan system. This legislation increases savings by allowing employees to contribute a portion of their paycheck to an individual retirement account (IRA) if their employer does not offer a pension plan. Automatic IRAs will help the 71 million workers that do not have employer-sponsored plans. It is a low-cost, sensible solution that provides a stepping stone toward employer-sponsored retirement plans. More workers are likely to contribute to an IRA if the contribution is deducted from their payroll. Automatic IRAs will help combat the inertia that is a factor in our low savings rate. The bill also provides a tax credit to help small businesses with the cost of implementation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 increase made the tax credit for contributions to qualified pension plans permanent, commonly referred to as the saver's credit, permanent. Our legislation builds upon this provision by making this credit refundable and making it 50 percent of the contribution for all eligible taxpayers. The annual contribution eligible for this credit is $2,000. In 2005, five million households benefited from this provision. These changes will help many more benefit from this important credit. Making the credit refundable will help those who are struggling and do not have enough income to save. Women are often placed at a disadvantage in our retirement system because they cycle in and out of the work force. The Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 addresses this issue by requiring employers that offer defined contribution plans to cover part-time employees that meet specific requirements. Pension coverage needs to improve, particularly for small businesses. In 2004, only 26 percent of workers at firms with fewer than 25 employees participated in pension plans. Progress has been made on providing coverage to small businesses. Currently, more than 19 million workers are covered by small business retirement plans, but more than 36 million Americans work for firms with less than 25 employees. The Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 provides a start-up credit for new small business retirement contributions. In addition, it removes rules that discourage small employers from adopting deferral only plans. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to help improve the retirement of mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. We should work together to provide incentives that encourage participation in retirement plans and remove barriers preventing employers from offering them. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, States like my home state of Massachusetts are setting an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America. In Massachusetts there is still a major obstacle in the overall goal of universal coverage: cost. The fact is the problem of the uninsured can't be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system will require that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the burden to help alleviate costs. Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for everyone. One percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare costs, and 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To make healthcare more affordable, we must find a better way to share the immense burden of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured. Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to cover their workers is an aversion to risk, a fear that they will be saddled with a sick employee whose high premiums will bankrupt them. And patients who are catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these costs. Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to offer a substantive insurance benefit to all full time employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits that are proven to make care affordable. This means lower costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the health of everyone. Today I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act, a bill that will make Government a partner in helping businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases: those that use over $50,000 in a single year in healthcare costs. Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us will go down, by up to 10 percent under this plan. This plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower health care costs and improve coverage. I believe that even in today's sharply divided Washington, this plan is feasible. There is a growing bipartisan consensus that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the catastrophically ill. Consider the Medicare prescription drug program: Despite its flaws, the bill did cover 95 percent of the cost of prescription drugs once seniors passed through the disastrous ``doughnut hole'' in their coverage. The same approach has been used to protect the insurance market from going under in case of another catastrophic act of terrorism. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our Nation's healthcare crisis, a commonsense partnership between employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate goal: healthcare coverage for every single American. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Smith, Conrad, Snowe, and Bingaman in introducing the Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007. This legislation comes on the heels of the passage of the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which makes improvements to the defined benefit pension plan system. The legislation that we are introducing today builds upon that legislation and focuses on defined contribution plans. Our pension system has shifted away from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans. We should make it easier for employers to offer defined contribution plans and for individuals to participate in these plans. At a time when we have a negative savings rate that is the lowest since the Great Depression, we should provide appropriate incentives to help individuals save for retirement. In an effort to achieve this, the Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 focuses on increasing retirement savings, the preservation of income, equity in divorce, improving financial literacy, and encouraging small businesses to enter and remain in the employer retirement plan system. This legislation increases savings by allowing employees to contribute a portion of their paycheck to an individual retirement account (IRA) if their employer does not offer a pension plan. Automatic IRAs will help the 71 million workers that do not have employer-sponsored plans. It is a low-cost, sensible solution that provides a stepping stone toward employer-sponsored retirement plans. More workers are likely to contribute to an IRA if the contribution is deducted from their payroll. Automatic IRAs will help combat the inertia that is a factor in our low savings rate. The bill also provides a tax credit to help small businesses with the cost of implementation. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 increase made the tax credit for contributions to qualified pension plans permanent, commonly referred to as the saver's credit, permanent. Our legislation builds upon this provision by making this credit refundable and making it 50 percent of the contribution for all eligible taxpayers. The annual contribution eligible for this credit is $2,000. In 2005, five million households benefited from this provision. These changes will help many more benefit from this important credit. Making the credit refundable will help those who are struggling and do not have enough income to save. Women are often placed at a disadvantage in our retirement system because they cycle in and out of the work force. The Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 addresses this issue by requiring employers that offer defined contribution plans to cover part-time employees that meet specific requirements. Pension coverage needs to improve, particularly for small businesses. In 2004, only 26 percent of workers at firms with fewer than 25 employees participated in pension plans. Progress has been made on providing coverage to small businesses. Currently, more than 19 million workers are covered by small business retirement plans, but more than 36 million Americans work for firms with less than 25 employees. The Women's Retirement Security Act of 2007 provides a start-up credit for new small business retirement contributions. In addition, it removes rules that discourage small employers from adopting deferral only plans. I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to help improve the retirement of mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. We should work together to provide incentives that encourage participation in retirement plans and remove barriers preventing employers from offering them. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, States like my home state of Massachusetts are setting an example for the rest of the country by taking bold steps to provide quality health coverage for everyone. Now it is time for Washington to do the same by bringing meaningful, affordable healthcare to the uninsured, in Massachusetts and across America. In Massachusetts there is still a major obstacle in the overall goal of universal coverage: cost. The fact is the problem of the uninsured can't be solved unless the issue of skyrocketing health costs to families and businesses is also tackled. And fully reforming the healthcare system will require that the Federal Government begin shouldering some of the burden to help alleviate costs. Healthcare costs are highly concentrated in this country. The very few who suffer from catastrophic illness or injury drive costs up for everyone. One percent of patients account for 25 percent of healthcare costs, and 20 percent of patients account for 80 percent of costs. To make healthcare more affordable, we must find a better way to share the immense burden of insuring the chronically ill and seriously injured. Part of the reason that businesses and health plans today fail to cover their workers is an aversion to risk, a fear that they will be saddled with a sick employee whose high premiums will bankrupt them. And patients who are catastrophically ill or injured often face the tragic combination of failing health and financial peril. But there's a way to combat these costs. Congress should make employers and healthcare plans an offer they can't refuse. It's called ``reinsurance.'' Reinsurance provides a backstop for the high costs of healthcare. The Federal Government will reimburse a percentage of the highest cost cases if employers agree to offer a substantive insurance benefit to all full time employees, including preventative care and health promotion benefits that are proven to make care affordable. This means lower costs and lower premiums for both employers and employees. If the Federal Government can help small and large businesses bear the burden of cost in the most expensive cases, we'll dramatically improve the health of everyone. Today I am introducing the Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers Reinsurance Act, a bill that will make Government a partner in helping businesses with the heavy financial burden of those catastrophic cases: those that use over $50,000 in a single year in healthcare costs. Healthy Businesses, Healthy Workers will protect business owners from skyrocketing premiums, and provide more working families affordable, quality healthcare. With reinsurance, health insurance premiums for all of us will go down, by up to 10 percent under this plan. This plan does have a cost associated with it, but the benefits will outweigh the costs. We spend hundreds of billions of dollars each year on inefficient and wasteful health expenditures. We need to make sure that these funds are being spent wisely to ensure that we can lower health care costs and improve coverage. I believe that even in today's sharply divided Washington, this plan is feasible. There is a growing bipartisan consensus that the Federal Government has a responsibility to help the catastrophically ill. Consider the Medicare prescription drug program: Despite its flaws, the bill did cover 95 percent of the cost of prescription drugs once seniors passed through the disastrous ``doughnut hole'' in their coverage. The same approach has been used to protect the insurance market from going under in case of another catastrophic act of terrorism. As we take the next steps toward alleviating our Nation's healthcare crisis, a commonsense partnership between employers, families, and the government to share the costs of the sickest among us will lay the groundwork for achieving our ultimate goal: healthcare coverage for every single American. I ask for unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, 4 years ago today, as we know, the President stood on an aircraft carrier underneath a banner that read ``Mission Accomplished.'' He declared that the major combat operations in Iraq were over. When he spoke those words, 140 American troops had been killed in Iraq. Since then, over 3,200 more American troops have given their lives. Just today, we learned that April was the deadliest month this year, with 104 Americans dead. With every passing day, it becomes more obvious that the President really should have said: My fellow Americans, major combat operations in Iraq are just beginning. On that day, he should have had a plan to match the rhetoric with reality. But we are where we are, as the saying goes, and it is even more tragically clear to all but a few that if we want to accomplish our mission in Iraq--and we all do--if we want an Iraq that has any chance of stability and some sense of democracy, any sense of it, we have to change course. In the past 4 years, we have lost at least 3,342 of our best young men and women, and nearly 25,000 others have been wounded and many wounded severely. We have spent nearly $400 billion, and the cost is rising at a rate of over $2 billion per week. There is no end in sight. ADM William Fallon, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, recently said: We are losing ground every day. And even General Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq, now says that we can expect the situation to get worse before it gets better. We were treated to a spectacle a week and a half ago with news reports, a front-page story, I think, in the Washington Post, that Stephen Hadley, the President's security adviser, was casting about to find a general to be the sort of supreme organizer, if you will, of the war in Afghanistan and the war in Iraq. What struck me about that story is here is our Nation at war, here is a series of four-star generals whose lives are committed to Nation, to service, to duty, and to military, who under normal circumstances would be honored to be asked to become the point person to organize our Nation's efforts in two wars in a front that is of serious consequence to this Nation. Yet all four retired four-star generals said no. One was even quoted publicly as saying they don't know what the hell they are doing, or they don't know what direction they are going in. That is a pretty remarkable statement for a career military person to make about the current effort. But we also know the history of what has brought us here with retired generals--a whole host of them--who publicly rebelled postservice against the leadership of Secretary Rumsfeld, who is now gone. It is a rather remarkable statement about the lack of planning, about the lack of candor, about the scapegoating that has gone on, about the unwillingness of people's careers to be judged not by their ability to tell the truth but, rather, their willingness to tell the civilian leaders what they want to hear. As we know from our own intelligence agencies, the war in Iraq has increased the threat of terrorism by creating a breeding ground for terrorists that didn't exist before the invasion and by serving as a rallying point for extremists around the world. In fact, the State Department's annual terrorism report released yesterday shows that terrorist attacks worldwide were up 25 percent last year after increasing nearly fourfold the year before that. How does the leadership come to the country and suggest that this war is accomplishing our larger goals? How does it help the war on terror to be creating more terrorists? How can you tell the American people we have made you safer, when the number of terrorist incidents have gone up and the number of terrorists who want to kill Americans is larger today than it was on 9/11? Any businessperson, any tourist, anybody of any curiosity who has traveled abroad and who has asked a few simple questions or read the newspapers and listened to the news knows that our Nation, which we love passionately, is now less followed, less listened to, and less feared--less listened to by our friends and less feared by our enemies. The fact is, we are less safe as a result. We are less unified at home, less respected abroad, and we are less strong as a result. Obviously, there is no way we can make up for what has happened in the last few years, certainly not in terms of the lives lost and the pain and suffering endured by those wounded and by families who have suffered those losses, but the fact is, we can find a responsible strategy to try to deal with not just Iraq but the whole Middle East and, indeed, releverage America's position in the world. The President today, tonight, is going to veto crucial funding for the troops passed by both Houses of Congress, legislation that gives our soldiers all they need to complete the mission and receive the care they deserve once they get home. The President is going to veto it, but that is not all he is going to do. Then he is going to try to pin the blame on those who have pushed for a new direction. He is going to try to pin the blame for his failures, for his lack of planning, for his lack of leadership on those who are providing the only way to try to resolve what is happening in Iraq. Instead of pressuring Iraqi politicians, this administration is practicing the politics of division at home, a brand of American sectarianism that undermines our national unity, a unity required to make decisions in time of war. Last week, Vice President Cheney accused Senator Harry Reid of putting politics ahead of our national security. I suppose we have grown used to this Vice President, who has pioneered the politics of fear, who oversaw the politicization of the intelligence used to mislead the country into war, who claimed that we would be greeted like liberators, who told us the insurgency was in its last throws, who continues to insist that everything is on track and growing fine, I think we have grown used to this Vice President not being candid with the American people. Clearly, he didn't hesitate to impugn the integrity of the Senate's majority leader who is standing for an appropriate new direction with respect to our policy in Iraq. Certainly, we can disagree about those tactics or strategies without impugning the motives and challenging the integrity of those who speak those different possibilities. If the President insists on continuing down the wrong path, it seems to me Congress has no choice but to be as resolute in demanding the right path forward for our troops, for our country, and for the Iraqis themselves. I believe we have to continue to fight for the legislation that gives us the best chance of bringing our troops home with some measure of success in the region. Four years after ``mission accomplished,'' it is time for us to acknowledge the implications of what General Petraeus and every other military commander, the Secretary of State and even the President have told us. All of them have said there is no military solution to the violence in Iraq. I don't know how many times I have heard that on Sunday shows, I hear it out here in the corridors with individual Senators talking to the press. Everybody mouths the words: ``There is no military solution.'' But if there is no military solution and we are all agreed on that, then what is the military doing? Why is the military and an escalation in the number of troops so critical if there is no military solution? The administration, even after telling you there is no military solution, then gives you a rationale for a military solution, which is: We have to put additional troops in to have the security, in order to have the compromises. But the fact is, the security which, first of all, is proving illusive and probably impossible to secure with the troops alone, cannot be secured without the political compromises. This is a classic chicken-and-egg situation: Which comes first? You are not going to get the security until the stakeholders in this civil struggle feel confident enough that what they are struggling about can be resolved to their safety and future security. That is sort of a fundamental issue. You are not going to change the on-the-ground security situation and stop people from bombing and militias from killing unless those fundamental stakes are properly addressed and defined. It is long since time that we started to measure progress on the ground in Iraq by the one metric that will ultimately determine our success or our failure, and that metric is this: Are the Iraqis making the tough political compromises necessary to keep their country together? It has been nearly a year since the Maliki Government took power. At that time, General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad said that the Maliki Government had 6 months to make the political compromises necessary to win the public confidence. So here we have the commanding general of our forces and our trusted Ambassador to Iraq both saying they have 6 months to make the compromises. But guess what. The 6 months went by and nothing happened--nothing happened in Iraq to make those compromises happened, and nothing happened afterwards because the compromises didn't happen. That sends a message that there is no consequence to delay, there is no consequence to procrastination. After that, the Iraqi Government agreed to a set of benchmarks because people were growing frustrated and those benchmarks, guess what, were pegged to specific dates for making progress toward national reconciliation. In January, the President announced the troop escalation, and he told the American people the following: America will hold the Iraqi Government to the benchmarks it has announced. Now is the time to act. The Prime Minister understands this. But, once again, no real consequences, no real leverage, no real diplomacy. The result is, those benchmarks proved meaningless. You can take a look at the benchmarks the Iraqis agreed to. What did they agree to do at that point in time? October 2006, over 6 months ago, that was the deadline for Iraqis to approve a new oil law and a provincial election law. As of today, the oil law has yet to even be introduced in Parliament, and that is an improvement over the provincial election law which hasn't even been drafted yet. November 2006 was the deadline for new debaathification law to help bring Sunnis into the Government. A draft proposal was recently denounced by Ayatollah Sistani and a national commission to oversee the process, and guess what. It is nowhere near completion. In fact, 5 months after the deadline, the Shiite leader of the SCIRI Party recently described the Baathists as ``the first enemy of the Iraqi people.'' So much for debaathification and reconciliation. December 2006 was the deadline for the Iraqis to approve legislation to address the militias. To date, absolutely no progress has been made on this crucial legislation, and the militias continue to wreak havoc. January 2007 was the deadline for Iraqis to complete a constitutional review process. There was supposed to be a referendum on constitutional amendments by March. Guess what. The constitutional committee hasn't even drafted the proposed amendments, and the Iraqis remain far apart on key issues such as federalism and the fate of the divided city of Kirkut. We are no closer to a political solution today than we were when the Maliki Government took power 1 year ago, but there were more than 940 additional American troops who gave their lives in that process to wait for the Iraqis to procrastinate. Did the President actually hold the Iraqi Government to those benchmarks as promised? No. I hope the President tonight, when he addresses us after the veto, will address the benchmarks and where we are with respect to the failure of the Government to make the choices they said they had to make while our soldiers continue to die. The administration still refuses to get genuinely tough with Iraqi politicians. They keep moving the goalposts, deflect the criticism of a failed strategy which they refuse to abandon. Instead, we get more vague assertions that our presence is not open-ended and outright rejection of any proposal that would leverage that threat. The administration, it seems to me, has reached a point where it has to stop pretending the lack of political will in America is the problem. It is not the lack of political will in America that is the problem, it is the lack of political will in Iraq that is the problem. It is impossible to make any other judgment when you look at that entire series of benchmarks. I remember Secretary Rice coming before the Foreign Relations Committee, I believe, several months ago now, and I asked her the question about the oil law. She said: Oh, yes, the oil law is almost done, just about done; wrapped up, we are about to proceed forward, we are confident it is going to be done in a few days. Here we are, several months later, and there is no oil law. It is not even before the Parliament yet. The administration needs to accept the basic reality that the Congress has acknowledged: Iraqi politicians, if they are capable, if they are capable of making these decisions, have shown they will not do it without a reason to do it, without a rationale that feels some heat. A deadline is the only thing they have responded to so far. It took a deadline to be able to get them to do a constitution. It took a deadline to have each of their elections. Incidentally, they protested against each of the deadlines. Each time they said: Don't do this to us; we can't meet it; we can't make it; it is too much. But each time, because we set the deadline and kept pushing, they did meet it. American security is not a security blanket for Iraqis who want to procrastinate while American soldiers die. The longer the President continues to give them the sense that he is not going to change, he is not going to move on them, the more they are secure in the sense that they can just continue to jockey and play their political game at the expense of American dollars and American interests and American lives. Without real deadlines to force them, there is no way to actually determine that we can make the progress we need to make. Since January, when the President decided to disregard key elements of the Iraq Study Group and announced the escalation, over 340 American troops have died, and there is still no fundamental progress. The legislation we have sent to the President would change this dynamic. It would force the Iraqis to either stand up for Iraq and meet the political benchmarks they have agreed to or decide they can't do it and have their fight. It calls for a flexible timetable for the redeployment in 2008, and I underscore ``flexible.'' Every time we try to do something, we get into this totally phony, polarized debate where the President and his henchmen go out and talk about reckless abandonment and surrender and defeatism when, in fact, what we are proposing gives the President all the discretion in the world--to leave troops there to finish the training of Iraqis, which is the fundamental reason we are there; to leave troops there to chase al-Qaida, to prosecute the war on terror, which is in our interests, and to leave troops to protect American forces and protect American facilities. After 6 years of the war, what other fundamental mission should there be for American forces? It seems to me the real debate is one that should center around the failures of this administration to face that reality and the few choices we have now to try to achieve success. The most important choice that has to be made to achieve success is to engage in full- throated diplomacy, not dissimilar to the kind of meeting that will be held in Sharm el-Sheikh this week. We hope Secretary Rice will take advantage of that and that the countries of the region will come together around a new security arrangement and a new understanding of what has to happen. The timetable for the redeployment in the legislation sent to the President is not arbitrary, and it is not precipitous. It is consistent with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations and with the timeframe for transferring control of Iraq to the Iraqis that was set forth by General Casey. It also has the schedule agreed upon by the Iraqi Government itself. There is nothing arbitrary in a schedule to which your own commanding general and the Iraqi Government have agreed. Even the President has said, under his new strategy, responsibility for security would be transferred to Iraqis before the end of this year. So they are willing to set a date. The administration can set a date for the transfer of the security, but it is unwilling to set a date for the beginning of the drawdown of some troops so you guarantee that date for the transfer of security is actually meaningful. The President has said it. Our generals have said it. The Iraq Study Group has said it. Now it is time for the President to embrace legislation that makes those words reality. Instead of accepting the change that is necessary, we keep hearing we need more of the same; we have to give the surge time to work; the Iraqis need just a little more breathing space to start making political progress. General Petraeus has said, however, that he won't be able to make any progress assessment on the ground until September. Guess what. We hear that Iraq's Parliament, which has only been able to muster a quorum to even consider legislation about once every week or two--the Iraqi Parliament plans to take a 2-month vacation this summer, a vacation in the middle of a civil war. You sort of wonder what Abraham Lincoln would think of that. Iraq is descending further into chaos as thousands of Iraqis die each month. If the Iraqis go on vacation without making the key political compromises, it will absolutely guarantee that there is not going to be any meaningful political progress until next fall. I do not believe that America should be sending our troops to die for somebody else's vacation. How many more American soldiers are going to give their lives without any hope of achieving a real political solution? 300? 400? 500? How many more doors are going to be knocked on and phone calls made? How many more visits to Arlington and other cemeteries across America, while the Iraqis procrastinate and refuse to settle their differences? How can any of us in the Chamber look in the eyes of the parents of any young American killed and tell them: Your son or daughter died so the Iraqis can take the summer off? With every passing day it becomes clearer this Iraqi Government is not going to get the job done. It is not truly a unity government, it is a figleaf for politicians who are pursuing sectarian interests instead of protecting the nation they are charged with saving. Now it is starting to crumble under the weight of its own ineffectiveness and corruption. Last week some prominent Iraqi legislators came out and said publicly that they have lost confidence in the Maliki government. That is not surprising since we recently learned that Prime Minister Maliki was responsible for a politically motivated purge of Iraqi military leaders who had the gumption to actually act against the Mahdi militia. Yesterday the largest block of Sunni Arabs in the Parliament threatened to withdraw its Ministers from the Shiite-dominated Cabinet in frustration over the Government's failure to deal with Sunni concerns. As one Sunni legislator said: The problem is not just with sectarian practices but with the Government's ineffectiveness. This Government we are supporting is spiraling downward into greater and greater ineffectiveness. In the process, Iraq is spiraling deeper and deeper into its sectarian divide. It is not just the Iraqis. Last week we learned that several prominent Sunni countries are balking at complete debt relief for Iraq because of the lack of progress in political reconciliation. This past weekend the Saudis refused to allow Prime Minister Maliki to visit their country because he has not delivered on his promise to seek real reconciliation with Iraqi Sunnis. How can we expect progress and political reconciliation if the Iraqis have lost confidence in the Maliki government? How can we expect diplomatic progress when Iraq's neighbors have lost confidence in Iraqi leadership? This is a very serious issue. The administration has finally done what they should have done years ago: engaged, this week, in the kind of diplomacy that is desperately needed. On the eve of the summit, we learned that some of the major players have no confidence in the political process. So if we really want to bring about the political and diplomatic solution that is the only solution, the time has come now for new leadership in Iraq. When I was in Iraq in December, Prime Minister Maliki told me he was working on forming a new coalition that would isolate extremists unwilling to compromise and empower moderates who were. Since then we have heard from time to time that these negotiations continue behind the scenes. But nothing has happened. It is time to get out from behind the scenes. It is time to have a government that can put the pieces back together. As one Iraqi Minister said yesterday, Mr. Maliki ``said he was going to appoint new Ministers; he needs to do that. . . . What is he waiting for?'' That is a question the U.S. Congress should echo. We simply cannot go on like this, day after day, news cycle after news cycle--more bombs, more murders, more assassinations, more suicide bombings, more killings, more American soldiers dead. We can't go on like this and expect the situation to miraculously get better. Time is not on our side. Time is not on anyone's side in the end because if this does go downward into greater sectarian violence, all of the Iraqis will lose. If we are serious about a political solution, we need a fresh start. That is why I believe it is time for Prime Minister Maliki to make wholesale changes in his Cabinet. He already has to replace the six Muqtada al-Sadr Ministers, the Sadrist Ministers who recently resigned. He should use that as an opportunity to fire any other Minister who is not committed to political reconciliation and replace them with Ministers who are. We should make it clear this truly is his last chance. If reshuffling the Cabinet does not produce meaningful political progress within a relatively short period of time, then he should step down and allow a new leader to step forward. Putting Mr. Maliki's personal political future on the line is perhaps one of the few ways left to try to create the leverage necessary to find out if he is capable of moving the reconciliation procession forward. If he proves unwilling or unable, then clearly someone else should be given a chance--if there is someone else. This is the moment to put that to the test. I recognize that Iraqis must take responsibility for their own future and that any government we impose will lack legitimacy with their fellow Iraqis. But we can use our own influence behind the scenes to encourage the Iraqis to make the leadership changes so clearly needed in order to give their Government a chance to succeed. We certainly have a right to make that request, given the degree to which that Government is dependent on our troops and our money and our presence. Congress has finally done what this administration has stubbornly refused to do. I am proud of my fellow Members of this body who had the courage to vote for this legislation. I know how divisive it can be. I know how the other side uses it and how people tend to try to personalize and even denigrate people's patriotism and concern for the Nation. The fact is, the Congress has done what needed to be done because this administration has not done it. People say don't micromanage. Someone has to manage. They have clearly mismanaged every step of this war, and they have been absent from the diplomacy necessary. It is time to have a new strategy, time to hold Iraqi politicians responsible for their country's future, time to get deadly serious about finding a political solution, and finding it now. Somehow this President still chooses to take a different tack. If President Bush vetoes this bill, which we understand he will, then he is the one standing in the way of a bipartisan strategy on Iraq. The Iraq Study Group was bipartisan. The Iraq Study Group had former Secretary of State Jim Baker, a Republican, a great friend of President Bush's father. It had Secretary of State Larry Eagleburger. It had Al Simpson, former Senator from Wyoming and Republican leader in the Senate. It had Bill Perry, former Secretary of Defense; Chuck Robb; it had Ed Meese, former Attorney General and Chief of Staff to a Republican President. All of these are moderate, thoughtful, respected, trusted voices in foreign policy and in the affairs of our country. They all came together in a consensus. That consensus was summarily rejected by the President, just pushed aside. The President decided to go his own road, which even the generals and even Prime Minister Maliki did not want to do. I read one Senator's comment that there is no plan B, that there is just plan A, which is the surge. I disagree with that. Plan B is what plan B should have been all the time, which is to engage in the legitimate kind of intervention on a diplomatic level and to put on the table all of the issues of the region in a way that proves the kind of sincerity and seriousness of purpose that raises the level of credibility of the discussion so people can trust that we, in fact, are going to be moving in a common direction, which is in their interests. The reason Saudi Arabia is sending such public messages of discontent for the policies of this administration today is because, given what has happened, that is the way they have to play it in order to deal with their own politics of the region and their own politics of the street and their nation. It is our absence from a creative, diplomatic effort, it is our absence from a credible and legitimate diplomatic lift that has left no choice even to our friends than to begin to distance themselves from our country. With this veto, the President will deny our troops the vehicles they need, for the time being; he will deny them the basic care they deserve, for the time being, because all of us know the Congress will come back and we will fund those things. But the most significant thing he will deny us is the kind of leadership and the kind of consensus the country deserves in order to move forward in our policy in Iraq. We honor the lives lost in Iraq, not with words but with lives saved. We honor the lives lost in Iraq not with words and with the political partisanship here but with a policy that is right for them and for the region. We honor their sacrifice by creating a situation in the region where we protect America's and the region's interests at the same time and begin to recognize the degree to which our presence in Iraq is playing into the hands of the terrorists, is advancing the very cause we seek to fight, which is diminishing the ability of the United States to be able to leverage, not just the Middle East issues, but a host of other issues in the world. I believe we need to change course, and it is only by changing course that we will honor their sacrifice, respect our interests, and bring our troops home with honor. Madam President, I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I would like to inform the Members of the Committee that the Committee will hold a roundtable entitled ``SBA Reauthorization: Small Business Loan Programs,'' on Wednesday, May 2, 2007 at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to followup on the comments Chairman Baucus made about the depreciation of retail improvements and engage in a colloquy with Senators Snowe and Baucus. Under current law, improvements made to rented retail property are depreciated over 15 years. Improvements made to owned property are depreciated over 39 years. The current tax treatment of improvements to retail property results in an inequity. There is no justification to treat these improvements differently for tax purposes based on whether the property is owned or rented. Unfortunately, this provision was not included in the small business tax package.

Mr. KERRY. I agree with the comments made by Senator Snowe, and we have heard first hand how important this provision is to small businesses. During the January Finance Committee hearing on small business tax issues, Mr. Dave Ratner, owner of Dave's Soda and Pet City of western Massachusetts, testified about the need for retail owners to be able to depreciate improvements over 15 years instead of 39 years. He eloquently explained why owners and renters should be treated in the same manner and how difficult it is for small businesses to compete with large retail chains. Senator Snowe and I would like to work with you to address this inequity.

Mr. KERRY. I look forward to continuing to work with you on this important provision which helps small businesses. We need to provide equal tax treatment for depreciated property regardless of whether it is owned or rented.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to support during National Small Business Week a bipartisan Senate resolution honoring the entrepreneurial spirit of small business owners throughout the United States. I am privileged to work every day with ranking member, Senator Snowe and other members of my committee on behalf of small businesses and I am gratified to introduce this legislation with them here today. Twenty-six million small businesses are currently operating in the United States. They represent 99.7 percent of all employers and account for two-thirds of all new jobs created each year. In addition, they contribute over 50 percent of the Nation's nonfarm gross domestic product. Small businesses are the Nation's innovators, producing 13 to 14 more patents per employee than large businesses, and they account for 97 percent of all exporters. It is clear that small businesses are a powerful force in the economic vitality that makes America strong, and small businesses would not have this success were it not for government programs which support them. The Small Business Administration was created to support and protect small business concerns, and they have worked hard to do so. Millions of entrepreneurs have received loans or business counseling, allowing them to start or expand small businesses. Staples, Intel, Nike, and America Online are just a few of the most well-known businesses who received assistance through at least one of the SBA's programs. Craig A. Bovaird from Princeton, MA, who I met this week when he was honored in Washington as the Massachusetts Small Business Person of the Year, is president of the Built-Rite Tool and Die, Inc. based in Lancaster which specializes in developing and manufacturing thermoplastics for the aerospace, medical, defense and high-tech industries. He is a pillar of his community--proud father of three daughters, involved in his town's finance committee, renovating the public library, and a leader of his church. He had an idea and he had the technical expertise and knowledge about the industry. Craig is passionate about his business. As Craig said, ``I enjoy watching an idea go from mind to paper through construction to a finished masterpiece.'' But it was John Rainey, a counselor at Clark University's Small Business Development Center in Worcester, who guided Craig through the development of a solid business plan. Craig's business is a success today--against the odds--because his manufacturing business grew and prospered at a time when other plastics companies were on the decline. This is thanks to Craig's hard work, and also thanks to a key SBA program that got him the business counseling he needed. However, despite these national and local successes, there are a number of issues which continue to be a problem for small businesses, and, in order to encourage continuing economic growth, it is important that Congress take steps to address them. Unfortunately, this administration has repeatedly reduced efforts to support small businesses. A report from the House Small Business Committee notes that the fiscal year 2008 budget would cut or terminate funding for 90 of the 110 Federal programs that were designed to support entrepreneurship. In addition, since 2001, the administration has cut the SBA budget by more than 30 percent. When disaster loan funding is included, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget request is a cut of 45 percent since taking office. The SBA needs adequate funding in order to meet the needs of small businesses. The administration has also repeatedly called for the reduction or elimination of important loan programs, such as the Microloan program. The Microloan program is a small, efficient, cost-effective program, which provides very small loans and counseling to small businesses. Supporters in Congress and advocacy groups are requesting very little to fund this program--$3.2 million for the Microloan program and $20 million for technical assistance. That is minuscule when compared with U.S. funding for small businesses in other countries. In 2005, the United States spent more than $200 million on microloan programs in other countries. In 2006, the United States spent more than $54 million on microloans in Iraq, according to U.S. Ambassador Khalilzad. And, in the President's fiscal year 2007 emergency funding request for the war in Iraq, the administration as requested about $160 million in microcredit initiatives. The management assistance programs, such as the Small Business Development Centers, the Women's Business Centers, and the SCORE program, have also suffered under continuing flat or reduced funding. For instance, when taking account into inflation, SBDCs have experienced a 19 percent cut since 2001, despite the fact that this program returns $2.82 dollars to the Federal Government for every Federal dollar spent. Counseling hours and the number of clients counseled began declining in 2003 and 2004 and have continued to do so. Adequate funding for these programs is essential to prevent further loss of assistance to small businesses. I also continue to be concerned about the Federal Government's inability to meet the procurement goals set forth in law. The Federal Government has simply done an abysmal job of ensuring that small businesses get their fair share of Federal contracts. For instance, the Department of Defense's 0.5 percent procurement with service-disabled veteran owned firms is significantly below the 3 percent stated goal and is unacceptable. These shortcomings are harming small businesses, and I will continue to push to make sure small businesses get a fair chance at selling to the Federal Government. Nearly 2 years after Hurricane Katrina, small business owners and homeowners are struggling just to keep their doors open. Many of them were turned down or simply gave up on the SBA when they needed government assistance the most. The Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship recently reported a bill that would comprehensively reform the disaster loan program, and I urge my colleagues to support passage of this important legislation. This critical legislation will help all small businesses who are faced with a catastrophe through no fault of their own. Patrick Turley, president of Turley Publications, Inc., in Palmer, MA, is the face of why we need an efficient disaster loan program that is a handup, not a handout. Patrick was also honored this week in Washington with the Phoenix Award for Small Business Disaster Recovery. When his business faced massive flooding in October 2005, which caused $993,000 in property losses, Patrick rallied his employees and still printed two university newspapers on time. With the help of an SBA disaster loan, Patrick was able to resume running his plant at full capacity just 5 months after the storms. Patrick's perseverance, leadership and courage in the wake of a disaster are commendable. By keeping his plant running, he kept people working and showed the people of Palmer that they too could overcome adversity. I am proud of the many hardworking Americans like Craig and Patrick and the millions of others who face the risk and uncertainties inherent in opening and running a small business each day, and I applaud the achievements of the owners and their employees. Their hard work and dedication contribute tremendously to the economic well-being of this great Nation and deserve to be supported by the Federal Government.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week we are celebrating National Small Business Week to recognize the contributions made by small businesses, which are the engine of our economic growth. During 2005, more than 25 billion small businesses in the United States contributed $918 billion to the economy. Many of our most successful corporations started as small businesses, including AOL, Apple Computer, Compac Computer, Datastream, Evergreen Solar, Intel Corporations, and Sun Microsystems. As you can see from this partial list, many of these companies played an integral role in making the Internet a reality. Today, Senator Snowe and I are introducing the Invest in Small Business Act of 2007, to encourage private investment in small businesses by making changes to the existing partial exclusion for gain from certain small business stock. We are at an integral juncture in developing technology to address global climate change. I believe that small business will repeat the role it played at the vanguard of the computer revolution by leading the Nation in developing the technologies to substantially reduce carbon emissions. Small businesses already are at the forefront of these industries, and we need to do everything we can to encourage investment in small businesses. Back in 1993, I worked with Senator Bumpers to provide a partial exclusion for gain from the sale of small business stock. This provision would provide a 50 percent exclusion for gain for individuals from the sale of certain small business stock that is held for five years. Since the enactment of this provision, the capital gains rate has been lowered twice without any changes to the exclusion. Due to the lower capital rates, this provision no longer provides a strong incentive for investment in small businesses. The Invest in Small Business Act makes several changes to the existing provision. This legislation increases the exclusion amount from 50 percent to 75 percent and decreases the holding period from five years to four years. This bill would allow corporations to benefit from the provision as long as they own less than 25 percent of the small business corporation stock. Currently, the exclusion is treated as a preference item for calculating the alternative minimum tax (AMT). The Invest in Small Business Act of 2007 would repeal the exclusion as an AMT preference item. Under current law, the nonexcluded amount of gain is taxed at 28 percent. This legislation would tax the nonexcluded portion at the lower capital gains rate of 15 or 5 percent. The Invest in Small Business Act of 2007 will provide an effective tax rate of 3.75 percent for the gain from the sale of certain small businesses. This lower capital gains rate will encourage investment in small businesses. In addition, the changes made by the Invest in Small Business Act of 2007 will make more taxpayers eligible for this provision. As we celebrate the success of entrepreneurs this week, it is an appropriate time to encourage new investment. The Invest in Small Business Act of 2007 strengthens an existing tax incentive to provide an appropriate incentive to encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and a summary of the bill be printed in the Record

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week thousands of business owners, union members, faith leaders, physicians, nurses, and patients will come together in Washington and in each of the 50 States to demand immediate action to fix our Nation's growing health insurance crisis. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's fifth annual Cover the Uninsured Week will once again call attention to the 45 million of our neighbors, co-workers and friends--including 11 million children under age 21--who live without any health care coverage. Unable to afford doctor's visits and prescription drugs, they live day to day in fear that a child will get sick or suffer an accident. No family in this great Nation should have to live in such fear. Understandably, the focus of Cover the Uninsured Week this year is on the great opportunity presenting this Congress to expand coverage to millions of America's uninsured children through the reauthorization and expansion of the successful, bipartisan State Children's Health Insurance Program. This is the number one domestic budget priority for me and for the new Democratic Congress. In a given year, uninsured kids are only half as likely to receive any medical care. That neglect leads to chronic disease. Uninsured kids also cost us productivity when parents must choose between working and caring for a sick child without the help of a doctor. Kids in public insurance programs perform 68 percent better in school, and insuring all of them would reduce avoidable hospitalizations by 22 percent. But while kids are undoubtedly our first priority, we must take care not to lose sight of our ultimate objective: Ensuring that every single man, woman, and child in America has affordable and meaningful health insurance coverage. The fact is that denying health insurance is not just immoral, it's ultimately more costly than insuring them. In the long run, this is an obvious choice. But we do not have time to wait for the long run. Our businesses, families, and health care providers need relief immediately from the insecurity, inefficiency, and inequity bred by a system which insures too few at too high a cost. Therefore, I am introducing today the ``Countdown to Coverage Act of 2007.'' It's simple: The Countdown to Coverage Act requires Congress to pass legislation by the end of the 111th session that will ensure all Americans have quality, affordable health care coverage. If Congress fails to act, members will become responsible for 100 percent of the cost of their own plan through FEHBP. Senators and Congressmen give ourselves the very best health care coverage, and it's American taxpayers who foot the bill. Now, Congress needs to step up and pass universal health care coverage by 2011--or pay the price and pick up the cost of our own health care ourselves. 45 million people--11 million kids--without health insurance is unacceptable in the richest country in the world. Every American deserves the kind of quality care that Senators and Congressmen give themselves, and this bill sets a deadline for members of Congress to take real action. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the legislation be printed in the Record.