John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Akaka amendment to increase funding for the Department of Veterans Affairs by $430 million dollars. We are offering this amendment on this emergency legislation composed primarily of war funding for two simple reasons. In the first place, this funding is needed urgently to meet the needs of America's veterans. Second, caring for America's veterans is a continuing cost of war. Sadly, the Department of Veterans Affairs continues to have to tighten its belt to meet the needs of its patients. Last year, after warnings from Democrats, the administration was compelled by the gravity of events to admit a shortage of more than $1 billion for veterans health care. Congress made an emergency supplemental appropriation of the needed dollars, but we know now that the Department is still $182 million short. I don't believe that the VA should have to squeeze budgets to provide patient care. So this amendment rightfully provides $182 million to cover unmet needs. Not all the wounds of war are physical. In July of 2004, the New England Journal of Medicine reported that one in six combat veterans in Iraq and Afghanistan showed symptoms of major depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic stress disorder. A more recent study in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 19.1 percent of returning veterans from Iraq and 11.3 percent of veterans returning from Afghanistan reported mental health problems. We know from historic experience that soldiers will return from war having to navigate a range of emotional issues, regardless of whether they are diagnosed with PTSD. So this amendment will provide $248 million dollars to fund expanded screening and treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder and other mental health conditions. It will enable the VA to make use of community-based outpatient clinics for PTSD screening and treatment. It will expand innovative programs that link the work of Vet Centers with National Guard units returning from combat. We must never forget the veteran--that young American who stood up to be counted when their country needed them. Now they need our assistance, and it is our turn to stand with them. I urge my colleagues to stand up and be counted on this important amendment. (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Congress comes back in session for a five-week work period, it is high time we put partisan bickering aside and take up real issues that will improve the lives of America's hard- working families. Today, I rise to address one such problem--the growing shortage of quality child care for our country's future generations. Over the past 50 years, the United States has witnessed a 43 percent increase in the number of dual- earner and single-parent families. Furthermore, the Census Bureau estimates that more than six million children are left home alone on a regular basis. Nationwide, more households than ever are struggling to make ends meet, while providing safe, nurturing environments for their children to grow up in. For many, child care is not a choice, but a necessity in this endeavor. That is why we owe it to our Nation's families to increase the availability of quality child care--because strong, healthy families build a stronger America. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I firmly believe that we can work with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to cultivate and expand existing child care facilities. In light of this, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006, which establishes a three-year pilot program enabling small, non-profit child care businesses to be eligible for the SBA's 504 loans. With affordable fixed low interest rates and long terms, 504 loans play a vital role in spurring economic development and the rebuilding of communities. Current law permits for-profit child care small businesses to finance building repairs and expand existing facilities through these 504 loans. However, their non-profit counterparts are unable to access the same financing through the SBA. Given that the majority of child care centers in many States across the country operate as non-profits, this system is shutting out the lion's share of facilities from obtaining necessary funds to provide quality care for the families they serve. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006 reverses this trend. By allowing non-profit child care businesses to apply for 504 lending, the legislation enables these entities to put down only 10 to 20 percent of the loan with a term of up to 20 years. With low, predictable monthly payments, these non-profit centers can then invest in the families they provide services to, by updating and improving their buildings and materials without breaking the bank or raising fees. Since the industry is not high-earning overall, a majority of child care centers do not have an abundance of easily accessible capital. Proposals that call for centers to simply charge less or cut back on employees are not the way to make child care more affordable for families and do not serve in the children's best interests. An adequate staff is crucial in ensuring that children receive proper supervision and support to foster their development and learning. Furthermore, if centers are asked to decrease operating costs in order to lower costs absorbed by families, the safety and quality of the child care provided would most likely be in jeopardy. In recent years, the Children's Defense Fund estimated that in all but one State, the average annual cost of child care in urban area child care centers is more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. Additionally, they projected that child care can easily cost between $4,000 to $10,000 per year in cities and States across the Nation. Clearly, these high costs pose virtually insurmountable hurdles for low-income families in need of quality care for their children. Although many States have implemented grant and loan programs to help these child care small businesses, more must be done--not only to improve the quality of care, but also the overall supply of child care facilities for the Nation's neediest families. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and allow non-profit child care providers to access SBA 504 financing for their facilities and the children they serve. Funded entirely through fees, this legislation requires no appropriation. Additionally, it is consistent with the three-year SBA reauthorization cycle. This legislation is the product of work on this issue in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. Similar legislation was introduced in 2002, S. 2891, however the four year provision made this program inconsistent with the cycle of SBA reauthorization. To remedy this, I reintroduced the measure in 2003 as S. 822, making the act a three-year pilot program consistent with the cycle of reauthorization. This pilot program was also part of the larger Senate Small Business reauthorization legislation in the last Congress, S. 1375. Unfortunately, this innovative proposal to expand child care, which had bipartisan support, was cut out of the final authorization package when a scaled-back version of the reauthorization legislation, without most Democratic initiatives, was added to the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill. Although there is no quick-fix solution for the Nation's child care shortage and lack of quality facilities, this bill marks an important step in the right direction by allowing non-profit child care centers to receive SBA loans. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development of fine minds and productive citizens, and realize that in this great Nation, child care should be available to all families in all income brackets. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006 is a sound investment in our Nation's future--our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Congress comes back in session for a five-week work period, it is high time we put partisan bickering aside and take up real issues that will improve the lives of America's hard- working families. Today, I rise to address one such problem--the growing shortage of quality child care for our country's future generations. Over the past 50 years, the United States has witnessed a 43 percent increase in the number of dual- earner and single-parent families. Furthermore, the Census Bureau estimates that more than six million children are left home alone on a regular basis. Nationwide, more households than ever are struggling to make ends meet, while providing safe, nurturing environments for their children to grow up in. For many, child care is not a choice, but a necessity in this endeavor. That is why we owe it to our Nation's families to increase the availability of quality child care--because strong, healthy families build a stronger America. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I firmly believe that we can work with the Small Business Administration (SBA) to cultivate and expand existing child care facilities. In light of this, I rise today to introduce the Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006, which establishes a three-year pilot program enabling small, non-profit child care businesses to be eligible for the SBA's 504 loans. With affordable fixed low interest rates and long terms, 504 loans play a vital role in spurring economic development and the rebuilding of communities. Current law permits for-profit child care small businesses to finance building repairs and expand existing facilities through these 504 loans. However, their non-profit counterparts are unable to access the same financing through the SBA. Given that the majority of child care centers in many States across the country operate as non-profits, this system is shutting out the lion's share of facilities from obtaining necessary funds to provide quality care for the families they serve. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006 reverses this trend. By allowing non-profit child care businesses to apply for 504 lending, the legislation enables these entities to put down only 10 to 20 percent of the loan with a term of up to 20 years. With low, predictable monthly payments, these non-profit centers can then invest in the families they provide services to, by updating and improving their buildings and materials without breaking the bank or raising fees. Since the industry is not high-earning overall, a majority of child care centers do not have an abundance of easily accessible capital. Proposals that call for centers to simply charge less or cut back on employees are not the way to make child care more affordable for families and do not serve in the children's best interests. An adequate staff is crucial in ensuring that children receive proper supervision and support to foster their development and learning. Furthermore, if centers are asked to decrease operating costs in order to lower costs absorbed by families, the safety and quality of the child care provided would most likely be in jeopardy. In recent years, the Children's Defense Fund estimated that in all but one State, the average annual cost of child care in urban area child care centers is more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. Additionally, they projected that child care can easily cost between $4,000 to $10,000 per year in cities and States across the Nation. Clearly, these high costs pose virtually insurmountable hurdles for low-income families in need of quality care for their children. Although many States have implemented grant and loan programs to help these child care small businesses, more must be done--not only to improve the quality of care, but also the overall supply of child care facilities for the Nation's neediest families. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation and allow non-profit child care providers to access SBA 504 financing for their facilities and the children they serve. Funded entirely through fees, this legislation requires no appropriation. Additionally, it is consistent with the three-year SBA reauthorization cycle. This legislation is the product of work on this issue in both the 107th and 108th Congresses. Similar legislation was introduced in 2002, S. 2891, however the four year provision made this program inconsistent with the cycle of SBA reauthorization. To remedy this, I reintroduced the measure in 2003 as S. 822, making the act a three-year pilot program consistent with the cycle of reauthorization. This pilot program was also part of the larger Senate Small Business reauthorization legislation in the last Congress, S. 1375. Unfortunately, this innovative proposal to expand child care, which had bipartisan support, was cut out of the final authorization package when a scaled-back version of the reauthorization legislation, without most Democratic initiatives, was added to the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill. Although there is no quick-fix solution for the Nation's child care shortage and lack of quality facilities, this bill marks an important step in the right direction by allowing non-profit child care centers to receive SBA loans. I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the aisle will recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development of fine minds and productive citizens, and realize that in this great Nation, child care should be available to all families in all income brackets. The Child Care Lending Pilot Act of 2006 is a sound investment in our Nation's future--our children. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the American Society of International Law, ASIL, on its 100th anniversary celebrated on January 12, 2006. The ASIL was founded in 1906 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan association to advance the study of international law and encourage the establishment and maintenance of international relations on the basis of law and justice. A century later this organization continues to promote these goals by the publication of scholarly works in conjunction with providing policymakers and the public with outreach programs and research resources. The membership of the ASIL is derived from nearly 100 nations and includes attorneys, academics, judges, and representatives from foreign governments and nongovernmental organizations. Four thousand strong, the society strives to contribute to the understanding of international law and its role in foreign affairs. I would like to commend the ASIL for its 100 years of work in the field of international law and encourage the continuation of this course of thoughtful study.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a little while ago--I was not here, I was at a hearing of the Finance Committee--I am informed that the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, came to the floor to attack my position on Iraq, which is fine by me, but also I think somewhat questionable with respect to the rules and the ethics of the Senate to attack me personally about my motives with respect to a position I have taken. The Senator from Colorado suggested that ``we see an individual who is being spun in the political winds.'' Let me make it clear to the Senator from Colorado, and anybody else who wants to debate Iraq, that when it comes to issues of war and peace and of young Americans dying, nobody spins me, period. I am not going to listen to the Senator from Colorado or anyone else question my motives when young Americans are dying on a daily basis or losing their limbs because Iraqi politicians won't form a government from an election that they held in December. That is inexcusable. Let me ask the Senator from Colorado: Is it OK by him that young Americans are dying right now while politicians in Baghdad are frittering away their time and squandering the opportunity our soldiers fought to give them? Does he think that is a plan that is working? Does he think that is serving the needs of the American military? Indeed, a year and a half ago or 2 years ago, I suggested, as did many other people, that it would be inappropriate to set a timetable for American troops to withdraw because we had not had elections and because most people assumed what we were fighting then was al-Qaida and terrorists who were foreign terrorists. But the fact is since then we have trained forces, we have trained police. We listened to this administration consistently come and tell us how great the training is, how many people are up and trained, how much they have been able to make progress, how 70 percent of the country is indeed peaceful. If that is true, then there shouldn't be a great threat to reducing American forces on a schedule that is also tied to our ability to resolve other issues with respect to Iraq. I ask the Senator from Colorado: Let us have a real debate about this issue. Does he ignore what our own generals tell us? He says the President has a plan. Our generals tell us--General Casey--that the large presence of American forces in fact is adding to the occupation in the sense of an occupation and it derails the Iraqis standing up on their own. I am listening to General Casey--not to the Senator from Colorado. If General Casey tells me the Iraqis would stand up faster if there were less Americans there, I believe him. Our troops have done the job. Don't come to the floor of the Senate and try to suggest to me that somehow when we come up with a plan to protect our troops and to make America stronger we are somehow making their life more miserable. Ask the troops. Seventy percent of the troops who were polled in Iraq said they thought next year we ought to be able to withdraw. Those are our troops talking to us. The notion that we are going to try to make this into one of those political squabbles--let us have a real debate about the policy in Iraq. Anybody who wants to come to the floor and pretend it is working today is living in fantasyland. Anybody who wants to suggest our soldiers ought to be dying so a bunch of folks over there can squabble over issues we haven't even brought to the diplomatic table adequately has a false sense of what protecting the troops means and of what their interests are. The fact is they only respond to deadlines. Talk to people who have been in the region. It took a deadline to get them to have a transfer of the provisional government. It took a deadline to be able to get the elections in place. It took a deadline to be able to get the Constitution in place. It took a deadline to be able to have the election that we held in December. The fact is it ought to take a deadline now to tell them to put a government together, stop messing around, and don't put our kids' lives at stake and waste the billions of dollars of American taxpayers. Get your government together. You owe that much to the American people. You owe that much to yourself. You owe that much to the Iraqis. You owe that much to the world, which is waiting for leadership, for some kind of adult behavior. I don't think the American people believe what the Senator from Colorado said--that they believe there is a good plan in place. Everything we have been told about Iraq has turned out to be false, from almost day one. This is the third war we are fighting in Iraq in as many years. The first war, I remind Americans, was the war to get Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction. Then when there were not any weapons of mass destruction, it became regime change. If the President of the United States had come to the Congress and said I want authorization to go to Iraq for regime change, he wouldn't have received it. Then after it was regime change, it transformed into, oh, we have to fight them over here rather than fight them over there--fight them over there rather than here in the United States of America. That sounded good for a while because all of us want to fight al-Qaida and want to fight terrorists. But, lo and behold, we found there were, according to most of the estimates, 700 to 1,000 or so hardcore jihadists from other countries over there. The insurgency grew day by day to be an insurgency that is now a low- grade civil war. Prime Minister Allawi called it a civil war. Does the Senator from Colorado believe he knows better than Prime Minister Allawi what to call it? The fact is it is now a civil war, and our troops can't resolve a civil war, no matter how valiant--and they have been--no matter how courageous--and they have been--and no matter how skilled--and they have been. This is the best military I have ever seen. These are the best young men and women I have ever met, and it has been a privilege to go to Iraq and meet them. And they are making progress in certain areas. But their progress is set back by the unwillingness of Iraqis to pick up the baton of democracy. You have to compromise. The whole reason they think they can sit there and not compromise is because the President's policy is stay the course, stay the course, stay the course. And we have an occasional visit by the Secretary of State or somebody to suggest they ought to do more. Ambassador Khalilzad is a terrific person. He is skilled, and he is doing a great job. But he can't do this alone. I believe we ought to have a real debate about their policy--a policy where they told us it would cost $20 billion to $30 billion. Remember that, colleagues? Remember Mr. Wolfowitz in front of the committees telling us, Oh, the Iraqi oil is going to pay for the war? Remember them telling us that the soldiers were going to be received like conquering heroes with flowers all across Iraq? Then when looting broke out, remember Mr. Rumsfeld standing up and saying that Washington is safer than Baghdad, and looting happens? Remember how they didn't even guard the ammo dumps and our kids started to get blown up with the ammo they could have guarded? No plan was put in place. If anybody wants to read about Iraq, read the book ``Cobra 2.'' You can read the astounding story of negligence and malfeasance with respect to this war, about companies overbilling us, Halliburton by billions of dollars. Do you want to run down the list of things that are egregious with respect to this war? I will tell you one thing that I know well, and I will remind the Senator from Colorado that half the names on the wall of that Vietnam Memorial--half the names on that wall--became names of the dead after our leaders knew our policy wouldn't work. Our policy isn't working today, and I am not going to be a Senator who adds to the next wall, wherever it may be, that honors those who served in Iraq so that once again people can point to a bunch of names that are added after we knew something was wrong. We have a bigger responsibility than that. The absence of legitimate diplomacy in this is absolutely astounding to me. When you look at what former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger did night after night, day after day, flying back and forth on an airplane, struggling to be able to get people to come to agreement around the table; when you look at what former Secretary Jim Baker did, traveling all over the world, working with countries, pulling people together around the idea--I don't even see deputy assistant secretaries or other people out there at that level working with other countries to try to find a resolution to this. There are Sunni neighbors all around who could play a more significant role. The Arab League could play a more significant role. The United Nations could play a more significant role. What are we doing? Drifting day after day after day. Do we want to go back and talk about the armor our troops didn't have? Do we want to go back and talk about the humvees that weren't uparmored? How many kids have lost their arms or legs because of the lack of adequacy of the equipment they were given? How many parents had to go out and buy armor for their kids because it wasn't provided for? I have never in my life seen a war managed like this one where there has been zero accountability at the highest levels of civilian leadership and people have been able to make mistake after mistake after mistake. And people want to come to the floor and defend it as somehow justifiable that we have a plan and we are on course? We are not on course. We are on the wrong course. The plan needs to be changed. Somebody ought to tell the Iraqi leadership that American citizens are not going to put their money and the treasury of their young into a kind of noneffort to compromise and show statesmanship and leadership that puts a government together. When they put that government together, then we can talk about how we are going to move forward. But right now, this is adrift. It is a policy without leadership, and the American people understand that. What we need now is civilian leadership that is equal to the sacrifice of our soldiers. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as if in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every three years, our Committee reviews the majority of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) programs to see what's working, what's broken, and what can be improved. As ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee currently, and a member for more than 20 years, I have worked on many reauthorizations. I can tell you that the SBA reauthorization process is a great opportunity to examine programs, to work with the small business groups and SBA's partners--those who use these programs on a day-to-day basis--and the SBA, to ensure that they serve their intended purpose and make the dream of a small business a reality to those who might not be eligible for business loans through conventional lending, don't have an MBA but need some management counseling, or need help cutting through red tape to get government contracts. Today I am focusing on the SBA's largest small business programs. Specifically, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program for three years. This bill, the ``7(a) Loan Program Reauthorization Act of 2006,'' authorizes the SBA to back more than a combined $58 billion in 7(a) loans to small businesses, gives borrowers more options when choosing SBA financing, reduces program fees on borrowers and lenders if the government charges excess fees or has excess funding, creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development within SBA to increase the availability of capital to minorities, and creates a National Preferred Lenders program to streamline the application process for exemplary lenders to operate on a national basis and reach more borrowers. 7(a) loans are the most basic and widely used loan of the SBA business loan programs. These loans help qualified, small businesses obtain financing which is guaranteed for working capital, machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures, land and building (including purchase, renovation and new construction), leasehold improvements, and debt refinancing, under special conditions. The loan maturity is up to 10 years for working capital and generally up to 25 years for fixed assets. A key concept of the 7(a) guaranty loan program is that the loan actually comes from a commercial lender, not the government. This excellent private/public partnership has made this program one of the agency's most popular, with over 400,000 approved loans in the past six years. Last year alone, almost 96,000 small businesses received $15 billion in 7(a) loans, creating or retaining an estimated 460,000 jobs. To ensure that we continue to have enough authorization levels to manage the increasing demand, my bill reauthorizes the 7(a) Loan Program for three additional years at $18,500,000,000 fiscal year 07, $19,500,000,000 fiscal year 08 and $20,500,000,000 fiscal year 09. These authorization levels ensure that program levels are sufficiently high to enable the SBA to back the maximum amount of loans as possible and avoid credit rationing or shutdowns. Providing appropriate authorization levels to adequately address the capital needs of small businesses is as important as ensuring that eligible borrowers have access to both fixed asset financing and working capital to address all of their small business needs. Currently, borrowers who need working capital under the 7(a) program and fixed asset financing through the 504 loan program are not able to utilize both SBA loan guaranty programs to their maximum amount and are therefore forced to choose between the two programs. To prevent a situation where a borrower is forced to choose between getting a much- needed facility or getting working capital, my bill specifies that the borrower can have financing under both loan programs at the maximum level, given they qualify for both programs. In previous years, both 7(a) and 504 loans were subsidized by appropriated funds to pay losses. It was therefore appropriate to restrict small businesses to choose between the two programs. However, both of these programs are now self- supporting, and it makes no sense to continue this restriction on borrowers. One of our jobs on the Committee is to make sure that SBA-backed financing remains affordable to the small business community. As I just referenced, the 7(a) program is now self-funding. The Administration insisted on eliminating all funding for the loans, shifting the cost to borrowers and lenders, by imposing higher fees on them. The administration spins this as a ``savings'' of $100 million to taxpayers while the small business community considers this a ``tax.'' In addition to this ``tax,'' the President's budget shows that borrowers and lenders already pay too much in fees, generating more than $800 million in overpayments since 1992 because the government routinely over-estimates the amount of fees needed to cover the cost of the program. This is part of the reason that many of us in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, opposed eliminating funding for the program. This legislation seeks to address overpayments by requiring the SBA to lower fees if borrowers and lenders pay more than is necessary to cover the program costs or if the Congress happens to appropriate money for the program and combined with fees there is excess funding to cover the cost of the program. The Senate adopted this provision, offered by me and Senator Landrieu last year, to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill. In this reauthorization process, as I mentioned previously, I think it is important to look at specific programs and examine whether or not they are meeting their goals and intended mission. Part of the agency's mission is to fill the financing gap left by the private sector. According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Loan Express, availability of capital remains a priority for all small businesses, but for Hispanics and African Americans, it is one of their top three concerns. They are still more likely to use credit cards to finance their businesses, and they fear denial from lenders. Knowing of this need, I was deeply disappointed to see that although SBA's loan programs have increased lending overall, the figures surrounding the percentage of small business loans going to African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and women have not changed much since 2001. The administration will tell you that SBA has been ``highly successful'' in making business loans to minority groups facing competitive opportunity challenges. They claim that in fiscal year 2005, almost 30 percent of 7(a) loans and about 25 percent of 504 loans were made to minority groups. However, according to the SBA's own data, since 2001, while numbers of 7(a) loans have gone up for African Americans, the dollars have remained at 3 percent of all money loaned. In the 504 program, loans to women have decreased from 19 percent in number to 15 percent, and dropped from 16 percent to 14 percent in dollars. In the Microloan program, African Americans received 28 percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 as compared to only 21 percent of the total number of loans made in 2005. Their microloan dollars have also decreased from $7.1 million to $5.7 million in 2005. Native Americans went from 2 percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 to less than one percent--a mere .93 percent-- in 2005. These statistics are of great concern and demonstrate that the SBA has not been highly successful in playing an active role in fostering and encouraging robust entrepreneurial activity and small business ownership amongst these minority groups. The stagnant percentage of small business loans in these communities represents a failure of this Administration to provide an alternative means of obtaining capital to our underserved communities where funding has not been available throughout conventional lending methods. To break this trend and increase the proportion of small business loans to minorities, and the percentage of loans to African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians relative to their share of the population, my bill creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the SBA, similar to offices devoted to business development of veterans and women and rural areas. In charge of the office will be the Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development with expanded authority and an annual budget to carry out its mission. Currently this position is limited to carrying out the policies and programs of SBA's contracting programs required under sections 7(j) and 8(a) of the Small Business Act. To make sure that minorities are getting a great share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, counseling, and contracting, this bill expands its authority and duties to work with and monitor the outcomes for programs under Capital Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting. It also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade associations, and business groups to identify more effective ways to market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of Field Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to market to minorities. The latter is important because when SBA implemented its extensive workforce transformation plans several years ago, it eliminated lending-related jobs with a partial justification that remaining staff would be trained to do outreach and marketing to the community. However, district offices are not provided with sufficient funds or resources to do the job. In addition to setting sufficient program levels, giving our borrowers maximum loan options, reaching the underrepresented, and lowering fees to our borrowers, my bill makes great improvements in our lender operations. Lenders are key to providing these loans to small business borrowers throughout our nation. An exceptional lender in the 7(a) program will often become a ``preferred lender,'' with the authority to approve, close, service and liquidate loans without the lender obtaining the prior specific approval of the agency. SBA requires that lenders request preferred lender status in each of the 70 districts it desires to operate. There are many problems with this system, and this bill streamlines and makes uniform the process, an advantage to borrowers, lenders and the SBA. This preferred lender problem is not a new issue. During our last reauthorization in 2003, lenders complained that applying for lending autonomy in each of the 70 district office and branches is administratively burdensome, both for them and for the Agency staff, and that some district offices have taken advantage of the power to approve or disapprove lenders when they apply for this special lending status. I was very disappointed that this issue was not resolved in our last reauthorization. My bill attempts to alleviate this administrative burden on lenders and SBA staff who must process the application. My bill creates a National Preferred Lenders Program to allow lenders that have already demonstrated proficiency as a preferred lender the authority to operate in any state where it desires to make loans. To ensure that national preferred lenders are proficient and experienced, this bill requires the Administrator, no later than 60 days after enactment, to establish eligibility criteria for national preferred lenders but suggests that the criteria established include several things--consideration of whether the lender has experience as a preferred lender in not fewer than 5 district offices of the Administration for a minimum of 3 years in each territory, uniform written policies on the 7(a) loan program, including centralized loan approval, servicing, and liquidation functions and processes that are satisfactory to the administration. If a national preferred lender fails to meet the eligibility requirements established by the Administrator, the lender shall be notified of this deficiency and allowed a reasonable time for correction. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in suspension or revocation as a national preferred lender. Last, my legislation directs the SBA to establish a simple and straightforward alternative size standard for business loan applicants under section 7(a), similar to what is already available for borrowers in the 504 loan program, which utilizes maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards. Currently, in order to be eligible for an SBA business loan, the borrower must meet the definition of small businesses. Pursuant to the Small Business Act, SBA has promulgated size standards by industry utilizing the North American Industry Classification System. The SBA table based on this system is over 20 pages, single-spaced, which has made this size standard very complicated for lenders to utilize. In closing, I want to commend the community of 7(a) lenders for the tens of thousands of borrowers they reach every year, and for working with us to understand how to improve the program to attract more lenders and reach more borrowers. I hope that the Committee will act on this bill and other similar reauthorization bills before the current laws governing the 7(a) loan program expire on September 30, 2006. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am introducing a reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504 Loan Guaranty Program. This legislation goes beyond simply reauthorizing the 504 loan program. Not only does this bill provide adequate authorization levels in the 504 loan program, but it also takes on important oversight and accountability issues pertaining to the operation of Certified Development Companies (CDC). The issues that I will present in detail below are well overdue and failure on Congress's behalf to deal with them before the end of the fiscal year when the program expires will shortchange our borrowers, and ultimately our communities who reap the benefits of the local economic development that the 504 loan program is intended to provide. For more than 20 years, the 504 loan program has provided long-term financing for growing businesses with long-term (up to 20 years), fixed-rate financing for major fixed assets, such as purchasing land and making improvements, including existing buildings, grading, street improvements, utilities, parking lots and landscaping; construction of new facilities, or modernizing, renovating or converting existing facilities; or purchasing long-term machinery and equipment. The 504 loan is made through a collaboration between the Certified Development Company (which provides 40 percent of the financing), a private sector lender (covering up to 50 percent of the financing) and a contribution of at least 10 percent from the small business being helped. This program is a national leader in federal economic development finance programs and demonstrates it through, creating or retaining over 1.4 million jobs, backing more than $25 billion in loans, and leveraging over $30 billion in private investment. These incredible returns to our community could not be possible without the solid mission of the program that drives the types of projects and borrowers it serves. This program was not established to simply make loans--it was established to promote local economic development and to create jobs. I cannot think of another federal economic development program that has created over 605,000 jobs, as the 504 program has done. Last year alone, the 504 program created over 145,000 jobs. As the demand for 504 loans continues to grow, it is more important than ever to reaffirm the mission of the 504 program and to ensure that the 504 program is reauthorized at adequate levels to meet this growth. To address this issue, my bill reauthorizes the 504 Loan Program for three additional years at $8,500,000,000, fiscal year 07, $9,500,000,000 fiscal year 08, and $10,500,000,000, fiscal year 09. These levels are based on the current pace of program growth to ensure that there is more than adequate authorization. The fiscal year 06 504 demand is projected to exceed $7 billion, and the last 3 years have shown growth rates of 28 percent, 26 percent, and 26 percent. A low authorization level would either force the SBA to shut down the program or to ration credit throughout the year to avoid a shut-down. As I mentioned previously, this bill goes beyond simply reauthorizing the 504 loan program for an additional three years. It makes some much- needed changes to the structure of our CDCs, which are responsible for the delivery of this program and which are essential to the success of the 504 loan program. Year after year, I have heard about the dangers that structural changes pose to the CDC industry and the 504 loan program in maintaining the mission of economic development. One of the major changes experienced by CDCs includes the centralization of all 504 loan processing, loan servicing and liquidation functions from 70 SBA district offices to one or two centers in the country. This has resulted in a huge backlog, estimated at 900 loans waiting to be liquidated. This backlog results in a loss of revenue through delaying or completely writing off defaulted loans. This has the potential to drive up subsidy costs of the program and therefore fees on borrowers, CDCs and lenders. This bill puts forward a solution to this issue by decentralizing liquidation functions and allowing CDCs, if they choose, to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans or to contract with a qualified third-party to perform foreclosure and liquidation of defaulted loans in its portfolio. However, CDCs are not required to liquidate until SBA has come up with a program to compensate and reimburse them for all expenses pertaining to foreclosure and liquidation. The expenses would be approved in advance by the Administrator or on an emergency basis. The biggest structural change that has had a tremendous impact on our not-for-profit CDCs is the ability to expand operations into multiple states. This structural change, in conjunction with the growing demand for 504 loans and CDC operations in providing these loans to small businesses, requires Congress to set a statutory course that preserves the local economic development intent and mission of the program through accountability measures. The 504 program was not created for CDCs to expand operations and simply create revenue from one state to another. CDCs are more than lenders and should not act like for-profit banks. My bill ensures that local communities continue to be the main focus of CDCs by requiring that the 25 members of their board and board of directors be residents of the area of operations. In addition, CDCs will be required to annually submit to the SBA a report on the use of all excess funds and local economic development activities in each state of operation. This ensures that the members engage, invest, and are held accountable to the communities they serve. In addition to preserving and growing the 504 loan program, I think it is very important to ensure that low-income communities have access to 504 loans. As you may know, in 2000 Congress enacted the New Markets Tax Credit program to facilitate private sector investment in low- income communities. Theoretically, the program was designed to encourage private investors who may never have considered investing in low-income communities to do so, thereby attracting new sources of private capital for a variety of projects, including retail, childcare and primary healthcare centers, which in turn attracts jobs, services and additional opportunities to areas that have historically had a difficult time sustaining economic development. My bill creates a new public policy goal for the ``expansion of businesses in low-income communities'' and defines low-income areas as those areas which would be eligible for new market tax credits. Under public policy goals, a borrower can get a higher loan than the standard limit of $1.5 million. For example, a borrower could receive a 504 loan of up to $2 million if the proceeds will be directed toward this new public policy goal, or any of the currently established eight public policy goals. It is my hope that this incentive will increase the number of 504 loans in low- income communities and therefore build wealth, economic security, and employment opportunities which benefit the entire surrounding community. I want to thank Senator Pryor for his sponsorship of this legislation, and thank the many members of the 504 community for working with us to identify ways to make this program better than ever. I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation before the fiscal year expires on September 30, 2006, and ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 39 years ago this week Dr. Martin Luther King gave a speech at the Riverside Church in New York about the war in Vietnam. He began with these words: I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. His message was clear. Despite the difficulty of opposing the government's policy during time of war, he said, ``We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.'' I am here today to speak about Iraq. There should be humility enough to go around for a Congress that shares responsibility for this war. I believe the time has come again when, as Dr. King said, we must move past indecision to action. I have many times visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall, as many Vietnam veterans have. When you walk down the path of either side of that wall, east and west of the panels, you walk down to the center of the wall where it comes together in a V. That V represents both the beginning of the war and the end of the war because the names start at that V and go all the way up one end, east, and then they come back from the west. I remember standing there once after reading ``A Bright Shining Lie,'' by Neil Sheehan, Robert McNamara's memoirs, and many other histories of that war. One cannot help but feel the enormity of the loss, of the immorality that our leaders knew that the strategy was wrong and that almost half the names were added to that wall after the time that people knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion with respect to our policy in Iraq. Obviously, every single one of us would prefer to see democracy in Iraq. We want democracy in the whole Middle East. The simple reality is, Iraqis must want it as much as we do, and Iraqis must embrace it. If the Iraqi leadership is not ready to make the changes and the compromises that democracy requires, our soldiers, no matter how valiant--and they have been valiant--can't get from a humvee or a helicopter. The fact is, our soldiers have done a stunning job. I was recently in Iraq with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens. I have been there previously. No one can travel there and talk to our soldiers and not be impressed by their commitment to the mission, by their sacrifice, by their desire to have something good come out of this, and by the remarkable contribution they have made to give Iraqis the opportunity to create a democratic future for their country. Our soldiers have done their job. It is time for the newly elected Iraqi leadership to do theirs. It is time for America's political leaders to do theirs. President Bush says we can't lose our nerve in Iraq. It takes more nerve to respond to mistakes and to adjust a policy that is going wrong than it does to stubbornly continue down the wrong path. Last week, Secretary Rice acknowledged ``thousands'' of mistakes in Iraq. Amazingly, nobody has been held accountable for those mistakes. But our troops have paid the price, and our troops pay the price every single day. Yet the President continues to insist on a vague and counterproductive strategy that will keep U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely. I accept my share of responsibility for the war in Iraq. As I said in 2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war, and I certainly wouldn't have done it the way the President did. My frustration is that many of us all along the way have offered alternatives to the President. Countless numbers of Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, have publicly offered alternative ways of trying to achieve our goals in Iraq. I have listened to my colleagues, Senator Feingold, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, the Presiding Officer, and others all talk about ways in which we could do better. But all of these, almost all of them without exception, have been left by the wayside without any real discussion, without any real dialog, without any real effort to see if we could find a common ground. My frustration is that we keep offering alternatives. In 2003, in 2004, 2005, 2006, year after year, we put them on the table, but they get ignored and then we get further in the hole, the situation gets worse, and we are left responding, trying to come back to a worse situation than the one we were responding to in the first place. And we keep putting out possibilities, and the possibilities keep being left on the sidelines. Time after time, this administration has ignored the best advice of the best experts of the country, whether they be our military experts or former civilian leaders of other administrations or our most experienced voices on the Committee on Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. House and Senate. The administration is fond of saying that we shouldn't look back, that recrimination only helps our enemies, that we have to deal with the situation on the ground now. Well, we do have to deal with the situation on the ground now, but we have to deal with it in a way that honors the suggestions and ideas of a lot of other people who have concerns about our forces on the ground and our families at home and our budget and our reputation in the world and our need to respond to Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. Frankly, accountability and learning from past mistakes is the only way to improve both policies and institutions. Let me, for the moment, go along with this idea, the administration's idea. Let me focus on the here and now and let's face that reality honestly and let's act accordingly. You have to live in a fantasy world to believe we are on the brink of domestic peace and a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. One has to be blind to the facts to argue that the prospects for success are so great they outweigh the terrible costs of the President's approach. And you have to be incapable of admitting failure not to be able to face up to the need to change course now. Yes, change course now. Our soldiers on the ground have learned a lot of terrible lessons in Iraq. All you have to do is talk to some of the soldiers who have returned, as many of us have. It is time those of us responsible for the policies of our country learn those lessons. It is clear the administration's litany of mistakes has reduced what we can reasonably hope to accomplish. Any reasonable, honest observer--and there are many in the Senate who have gone over to Iraq and have come back with these views--knows that the entire definition of this mission has changed and the expectations of what we can get out of this mission have changed. I, for one, will not sit idly by and watch while American soldiers give their lives for a policy that is not working. Let me say it plainly. Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq over the course of the year in a timely schedule is actually necessary to give democracy the best chance to succeed, and it is vital to America's national security interests. Five months ago, I went to Georgetown University. I gave a speech where I said that we were then entering the make-or-break period, a make-or-break 5-month, 6-month period in Iraq. I said the President must change course and hold Iraqis accountable or Congress should insist on a change in policy. And I set a goal then, back in November, that we should try to reduce American combat forces and withdraw them by the end of this year. The situation on the ground has now changed for the worse since then. In fact, we are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first war was against Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction. The second war was against Jihadist terrorists whom the administration said it was better to fight over there than over here. And now we find our troops in the middle of a low-grade civil war that could explode into a full civil war at any time. While the events in Iraq have changed for the worse, the President has not changed course for the better. It is time for those of us in Congress who share responsibilities constitutionally for our policy to stand up and change that course. We have a constitutional responsibility, and we have a moral responsibility not to sit on the sidelines while young Americans are in harm's way. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will hold the Iraqis accountable and make the goal of withdrawing the most American forces a reality. I personally believe that most of those forces could be and should be out of Iraq by the end of the year. This war, in the words of our own generals, cannot be won militarily. It can only be won politically. General Casey said, of our large military presence, it ``feeds the notion of occupation'' and it ``extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.'' That is General Casey saying that the large force of American presence in Iraq contributes to the occupation and extends the amount of time. Zbigniew Brzezinski put it: The U.S. umbrella, which is in effect designed to stifle these wars but it is so poor that it perpetuates them, in a sense keeps these wars alive . . . and [is] probably unintentionally actually intensifying them. Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, breaking a 30- year silence, summed it up simply: Our presence is what feeds the insurgency. The bottom line is that as long as American forces remain in large numbers, enforcing the status quo, Americans will be killed and maimed in a crossfire of vicious conflict that they are powerless to end. We pay for the President's reluctance to face reality in both American dollars and in too many lives. American families pay in the loss of limb and the loss of loved ones. I don't think we should tolerate what is happening in Iraq today. We can no longer tolerate the political games currently being played by Iraqi politicians in a war-torn Baghdad. No American soldier, not one American soldier, should be sacrificed for the unwillingness of Iraqi politicians to compromise and form a unity government. We are now almost 5 months since the election. What is happening is the daily game being played by Iraqis who listen to the President say we will be here to the end. There is no sense of urgency, there is no sense of impending need to make a decision. The result is they just go on bickering and they go on playing for advantage while our troops drive by the next IED and the next soldier returns to Walter Reed or to Bethesda without arms and limbs. Given the recent increase in deadly sectarian strife, Iraq urgently needs a strong unity government to prevent a full-fledged civil war from breaking out and becoming the failed state that all of us have wanted to avoid. I believe the current situation is actually allowing them to go down the road toward that sectarian strife rather than stopping them. Thus far, step by step, Iraqis have only responded to deadlines. It took a deadline to transfer authority to the provisional government. It took a deadline for the first election to take place. It took a deadline for the referendum on the Constitution. It took a deadline for the most recent election. It is time for another deadline, and that deadline is to say to them that they have to come together and pull together and put together a government or our troops are going to withdraw. And under circumstances over a period of time, we will withdraw in order to put Iraq up on its own two feet. Iraqi politicians should be told in unmistakable language: You have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. I know some colleagues and other people listening will say: Wait a minute. You mean we are going to automatically withdraw our military if they don't pull it together? The answer is: You bet we ought to do that. Because there isn't one American soldier who ought to be giving up life or limb for the procrastination and unwillingness of Iraqis who have been given an extraordinary opportunity by those soldiers to take hold of democracy and who are ignoring it and playing for advantage. We all know that after the last elections, the momentum was lost by squabbling interim leaders. Everybody sat around and said, coming up to this election, the one thing we can't do is allow the momentum to be lost. Guess what. It has been lost. It has been squandered, again. We are sitting there with occasional visits, occasional speeches but without the kind of sustained diplomacy necessary to provide a resolution. It has gone on for too long, again. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in 5 months, then how long does it take and what does it take? If they are not willing to do it, they are not willing to do it. It is that simple. The civil war will only get worse. And if they are not willing to do it, it is because there is such a fundamental intransigence that we haven't broken, that civil war, in fact, becomes inevitable, and our troops will be forced to leave anyway. The fact is, we have no choice but to get tough and to ratchet up the pressure. We should immediately accelerate the redeployment of American forces to rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup, training, and emergency response. Special operations against al-Qaida in Iraq should be initiated on hard intelligence leads only. If the Iraqi leaders finally do their job, which I believe you have a better chance of getting them to do if you give them a timetable, then we have to agree on a schedule for leaving, withdrawing American combat forces by the end of the year. The only troops that remain should be those critical to finishing the job of standing up Iraqi security forces. Such an agreement will have positive benefits in Iraq. It will empower and legitimize the new leadership and the Iraqi people. It will expedite the process of getting the Iraqis to assume a larger role of running their own country. And it will undermine support for the insurgency among the now 80 percent of Iraqis who want U.S. troops to leave. In short, it will give the new Iraqi Government the best chance to succeed in holding the country together while democratic institutions can evolve. This deadline makes sense when you look at the responsibilities that Iraqis should have assumed by then. Formation of a unity government would constitute a major milestone in the transfer of political responsibility to the Iraqis. Even the President has said that responsibility for security in the majority of the country should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time. If the President believes that it should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time, why not push that eventuality and make it a reality? By the end of the year, our troops will have done as much as they possibly can to give Iraqis the chance to build a democracy. I again remind my colleagues, we are still going to have the ability to have over-the- horizon response for emergency, as well as over-the-horizon response to al-Qaida. And we will have the ability to continue to train those last forces to make sure they are in a position to stand up for Iraq. The key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious and sustained diplomacy. I want to say a word about this. I am not offering this plan in a vacuum. Critical to the achievement of all of our goals in Iraq is real diplomacy. Starting with the leadup to the war, our diplomatic efforts in Iraq have ranged from the indifferent to the indefensible. History shows that effective diplomacy requires persistent hands-on engagement from the highest levels of America's leadership. Top officials in the first Bush administration worked directly and tirelessly to put together a real coalition before the first Gulf War, and President Clinton himself took personal responsibility at Camp David for bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together and leading the comprehensive effort to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. This type of major diplomatic initiative has proven successful in many places in American history. Most recently, in 1995, there was a brutal civil war in Bosnia involving Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Faced with a seemingly intractable stalemate in the midst of horrific ethnic cleansing, the Clinton administration took action--direct, personal, engaged action. Led by Richard Holbrooke, they brought leaders of the Bosnian parties together in Dayton, OH, with representatives from the European Union, Russia, and Britain to hammer out a peace agreement. NATO and the United Nations were given a prominent role in implementing what became known as the Dayton Accords. In contrast, this President Bush has done little more than deliver political speeches, while his cronies in the White House and outside blame the news media for the mess the administration has created in Iraq. We keep hearing: They are not telling the full story. They are not telling the story. Secretary of State Rice's brief surprise visit to Iraq a few days ago pales in comparison to the real shuttle diplomacy that was practiced by predecessors such as James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Given what is at stake, it is long since time to engage in that. I can remember Henry Kissinger going from one capital to the next capital, back and forth, engaged, pulling people together. Jim Baker did the same thing. There was a genuine and real effort to leverage the full prestige and full power of the United States behind a goal. That is absent here. Ambassador Khalilzad is a good man, and he has done a terrific job, almost by himself, left almost to his own devices. That is not the way to succeed. Given what is at stake, it is past time to engage in diplomacy that matches the effort of our soldiers on the ground. We should immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton-like summit that includes our allies, Iraq's neighbors, members of the Arab League, and the United Nations. The fact is, a true national compact is needed to bring about a political solution to the insurgency. That is how you end the sectarian violence. Our soldiers going on patrol in a striker or a humvee, walking through communities will not end this violence. Our generals have told us, it can only be ended politically. Yet where is the kind of political effort that our Nation has seen in history now, trying to effect what our soldiers have created an opportunity to effect through their sacrifice? Iraqis have to reach a comprehensive agreement that includes security guarantees, disbanding the militias, and ultimately, though not necessarily at this conference, confronting some of the questions of the Constitution. All of the parties must reach agreement on a process for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders. Our troops cannot be left hanging out there without that kind of effort to protect them. At this summit, Shiite religious leaders must agree to rein in their militias and to commit to disbanding them. They also have to work with Iraqi political leaders to ensure that the leadership of the Interior Ministry and the police force under its control is nonsectarian. Shiite and Kurdish leaders must make concessions necessary to address Sunni concerns about federalism and equitable distribution of oil revenues. There is no way the Sunnis are going to suddenly disband or stop the insurgency without some kind of adequate guarantee of their security and their participation in the process. That was obvious months ago. It is even more obvious today. It still remains an open question. The Sunnis have to accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. Until a sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base cannot be created that isolates the hard-core Baathists and jihadists and defuses the insurgency itself. We must work with Iraqis at the summit to convince Iraq's neighbors that they can no longer stand on the sidelines while Iraq teeters on the edge of a civil war that could bring chaos to the entire region. Where they can help the process of forming a government, they need to step up. And for my colleagues who suggest that somehow withdrawing American forces will put that region at greater risk, I say ``no.'' I say that an over-the- horizon deployment, a deployment in Kuwait and elsewhere, diffusing the insurgency, and an adequate effort to diplomatically pull together this kind of summit is the only way to diffuse the insurgency and ultimately strengthen the region. The administration must also work with Iraqi leaders in seeking a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until finally a national army of Iraq has developed the capacity to do that itself. Frankly, such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors, countries such as India and others, that would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and of encouraging capital to flow into Iraq. To be credible with the Iraqi people, the new government must deliver goods and services at all levels. It is absolutely stunning--I don't know how many Americans are even aware of the fact--that today, several years later, electricity production is below where it was before the war. It is at 4,000 megawatts compared to the 4,500 before the war. Crude oil production has declined from a prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per day to 1.9 million barrels per day. We were told that oil was going to pay for this war. That has to change. Countries that have promised money for reconstruction, particularly of Sunni areas, haven't paid up yet. The money is not on the table. We can also do our part on the ground. Our own early reconstruction efforts were--now known to everybody--poorly planned and grossly mismanaged. But as I saw on a recent trip to Iraq, the efforts of our civilian military provisional reconstruction teams, which have the skills and capacity to strengthen governance and institution building around the country, are beginning to take hold. We need to stand up more of those teams as fast as possible. If we do that in the same context as we find the political resolution, then you have a chance. We must also continue to turn the job of policing the streets and providing security over to Iraqi forces. That means giving our generals the tools they need to finish training an Iraqi police force that is trusted and respected on the street by the end of the year. It also means finishing the training of Iraqi security forces with U.S. troops acting only on the basis of hard intelligence to combat terrorist threats. The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is necessary not only to give democracy in Iraq the best chance to succeed, it is also vital to our own national security interests. We need to pay more attention to our own vital national security interests. We will never be as safe as we ought to be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we need to win--the war on Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the terrorists who are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. To make it clear, despite everything this administration has said, today, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, even, are more dangerous in northwest Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan than Iraq is to us at this moment in time. There is a greater threat from al-Qaida, which has dispersed cells and through its training and abilities to organize, in Afghanistan than in the place that is consuming most of America's forces and money. The way to defeat al-Qaida is not by serving as their best recruitment tool. Even Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush's National Security Adviser, has joined the many experts who agree that the war in Iraq actually feeds terrorism and increases the potential for terrorist attacks against the United States. The results speak for themselves: The number of significant terrorist attacks around the world increased from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004, and it has continued to increase in 2005. The President keeps talking about al-Qaida's intent to take over Iraq. I have not met anybody in Iraq--none of the leaders on either side, not Kurds, the Shia, or Sunni--who believes a few thousand, at most--and by many estimates, less than a thousand--foreign jihadists are a genuine threat to forcibly take over a country of 25 million people. And while mistake after mistake by this administration has actually turned Iraq into the breeding ground for al-Qaida that it was not before the war, large numbers of United States troops are not the key to crushing these terrorists. In fact, Iraqis have begun to make clear their own unwillingness to tolerate foreign jihadists. Every Iraqi I talked to said to me: When we get control and start moving forward, we will deal with the jihadists. They don't want them on Iraqi soil, and they have increasingly turned on these brutal foreign killers who are trying to foment a civil war among Iraqis. This process will only be complete when Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their own future, and resistance to a perceived occupation no longer provides them any common cause with jihadists. As General Anthony Zinni said on Sunday, building up intelligence- gathering capability from Iraqis is essential to defeating the insurgency. He said: We're not fighting the Waffen S.S. here. They can be policed up if the people turn against them. We haven't won the hearts and minds yet. Once again, I remind my colleagues, the hearts and minds of the Iraqis will be more susceptible to being won when American forces are not there in the way they are now, in a way that can be used as the recruitment tool that it has been, when 80 percent of the Iraqi people suggest that American forces ought to leave. After the bulk of U.S. forces have been withdrawn, I believe it is essential to keep a rapid reaction force over the horizon. That force can be over the horizon within the desert itself, or it can be in Kuwait, and that can be used to act against terrorist enclaves. Our air power--the air power we used to police two-thirds of the no-fly zone in Iraq before the war--will always ensure our ability to bring overwhelming force to bear to protect the U.S. interests in the region. The bottom line is that working together with Iraqis from inside and outside Iraq, we can prosecute the war against al-Qaida in Iraq more effectively than we are today. Withdrawing U.S. troops will also enable us to more effectively combat threats around the world. But winning the war on terror requires more than the killing we have seen from 3 years of combat. The fact is that just taking out terrorists, as our troops have been doing, is not going to end the flow of terrorists who are recruited, for all of the reasons that we understand. The cooperation critical to lasting victory in the region is going to be enhanced when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, civil chaos, and mistake after mistake in Iraq no longer deplete America's moral authority within the region. This is also key to allowing us to repair the damage that flag officers fear has been done to our Armed Forces. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--members of the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee--have heard from flag officers in private about what is happening to the Armed Forces of our country. We know it will take billions of dollars to reset the equipment that has been lost, damaged, or worn out from 3 years of combat. In the National Guard alone, units across the country have only 34 percent of their authorized equipment, including just 14 percent of the chemical decontamination equipment they need. That is a chilling prospect if they are ever asked to respond to a terrorist incident involving weapons of mass destruction. The fact is the Army is stretched too thin. Soldiers and brigades are being deployed more frequently and longer than the Army believes is best in order to continue to attract the best recruits. Recruiting standards have been changed and recruitment is suffering. The Army fell 6,700 recruits short of their needs in 2005--the largest shortfall since 1979. Recruitment is suffering today. Not only are American troops not getting leadership equal to their sacrifice on the civilian side, but our generals are not getting enough troops to accomplish their mission of keeping the country safe. The fact is that in the specialties--special forces, translators, intelligence officers, for the Marines, for the Army, for the National Guard--our recruitments are below the levels they ought to be. Withdrawing from Iraq will also enable us to strengthen our efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is absolutely delighted with our presence in Iraq. Why? Because it advances their goals, keeping us otherwise occupied, and it allows them to make mischief in Iraq itself at their choice. Their President is so emboldened that he has openly called for the destruction of Israel, while defying the international community's demands to stop developing its nuclear weapons capability. Could that have happened prior to our being bogged down the way we are? North Korea has felt at liberty to ignore the six-party talks, while it continues to stockpile more nuclear weapons material. Any effort to be stronger in dealing with the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea is incomplete without an exit from Iraq. It will also enable us to more effectively promote democracy in places such as Russia, which is more than content to see us bogged down while President Putin steadily rolls back democratic reforms. China benefits from us throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq instead of into economic competition and job creation here at home. Our long-term security requires putting the necessary resources into building our economy and a workforce that can compete and win in the age of globalization. We cannot do as much as we need to--not nearly as much as we need to--while the war in Iraq is draining our treasury. Finally, we have not provided anywhere near the resources necessary to keep our homeland safe. Katrina showed us in the most graphic way possible that 5 years after 9/11, we are woefully unprepared to handle a natural disaster that we know is coming a week in advance, let alone a catastrophic terrorist attack we have no notice of. Removing the financial strain of Iraq will free up funds for America's homeland defense. The time has come for the administration to acknowledge the realities that the American people are increasingly coming to understand--the realities in Iraq and the requirements of America's national security. Stop telling us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis, when terrible things happen every single day because we are not tough enough. If we don't change course and hold the Iraqis accountable now, I guarantee you it will get worse. Ignoring all of the warnings, and ignoring history itself, in a flourish of ideological excess, this administration has managed to make the ancient cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam. But there is a path forward if we start making the right decisions. As Dr. King said so many years ago: The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history. Now is the moment of choice for Iraq, for America, and for this Congress.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program, legislation aimed at addressing this Nation's growing economic disparities through entrepreneurship and business development. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship that has made America's economy the best in the world. And it is through the energy and vitality of the small business sector that we will help all sectors of American society benefit from our robust economy. Exactly one year ago, the National Urban League released a report on the State of Black America, which discussed the growing economic gap between African Americans and their white counterparts. The report states that the median net worth of an African American family is $6,100 compared with $67,000 for a white family. The report makes clear that closing the racial wealth gap needs to be at the forefront of the civil rights agenda moving into the twenty-first century. Disproportionate unemployment figures for minorities versus their white counterparts have also been a persistent problem. Even as the administration has been touting the current low nationwide unemployment rate, the African American unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, the Hispanic unemployment rate was 6 percent, while the unemployment rate for whites averaged 4.1 percent. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we foster entrepreneurship in underserved communities. There are signs of significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent to an annual growth rate of 10 percent and employment opportunities within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go if this country is going to keep the promise made to all its citizens of the American dream. In 2005, African Americans accounted for 12.3 percent of the population and only 4 percent of all U.S. businesses. Hispanics Americans represent 12.5 percent of the U.S. population and approximately 6 percent of all U.S. businesses. Native Americans account for approximately 1 percent of the population and .9 percent of all U.S. businesses. We can, and should do something to address what is essentially an inequality of opportunity. I have long argued that there is a compelling interest for the Federal Government to create opportunities for business and economic development in all communities--throughout this Nation. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to lead the efforts and find innovative solutions to the racial disparities that exist in this country, whether they are in healthcare, education, or economics. Economic disparities in this country are a very complex issue, particularly when racial demographics are involved. I am well aware that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and there is no single piece of legislation that will level the playing field. However, I strongly believe that education and entrepreneurship can help to close the gap in business ownership and the wealth gap that exists in this country. Many minorities are already turning to entrepreneurship as a means of realizing the American dream. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national average. Business development and entrepreneurship have played a significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this country for over a century. The Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program offers a competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and HispanicServing Institutions to create an entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small Business Development Centers on campus to serve local businesses. The colleges and universities that participate in this program will foster entrepreneurship among their students, the best and brightest of the minority community, and develop a pool of talented entrepreneurs that are essential to innovation, job creation, and closing the wealth gap. The bill would make 24 grants, for $1 million each, available to institutions that include entrepreneurship and innovation as a part of their organizational mission and open a business-counseling center for those graduates that start their own businesses as well as the surrounding community of existing business owners. The goal of this program is to target students who have skills in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Minority-owned businesses already participate in a wide variety of industries, but are disproportionately represented in traditionally lowgrowth and low- opportunity service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students at colleges and universities expands the pool of potential business owners to technology, financial services, legal services, and other non-traditional areas in which the overall development of minority firms has been slow. Growing the size and capacity of existing minority firms and promoting entrepreneurship among minority students already committed to higher education will have a direct relationship on the employment rate, income levels and wealth creation of minorities throughout the nation. The funds are also to be used to open a Small Business Development Center (SBDC) on the campus of the institution to assist in capacity building, innovation and market niche development, and to offer traditional business counseling, similar to other SBDCs. The one-to-one counseling offered by the business specialists at these centers has proven to be the most effective model available for making entrepreneurs run more effective, more efficient, and more successful businesses. By placing the centers on campus, the institutions will be able to leverage the $1 million grant for greater returns and coordinate efforts with the school's academic departments to maximize the efficacy of the program. While the funding in this bill is modest relative to the multi- billion dollar budgets we discuss on a daily basis, these funds can go a long way and be leveraged to create economic growth in the most needed areas of this country. With this legislation, we will help foster long-term innovation and competitiveness in the small business sector. Mr. President, this bill is a small investment in the future of this country that I am sure will do much to foster economic growth in our minority communities and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing ``The Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act'' that will help military families that have suffered a tragic loss. In recent years, the Congress has generously raised the amount of the military death gratuity to $100,000 and expanded eligibility to all in uniform. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred accounts that help with saving for retirement, health care, or the cost of education. Our legislation would allow families who already have given so much to contribute the death gratuity to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions. This legislation will not ease the pain of military families that suffer the loss of a loved one, but it can help families put their lives back together. It will enable military families to save more for retirement, education, and health care by being able to put the death gratuity payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate tax-free. These changes to our tax laws will help military families with some of their financial burdens. It can not repay the sacrifices that they have made for us, but it hopefully demonstrates the gratitude of a Nation that will not forget the families of the fallen.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing ``The Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act'' that will help military families that have suffered a tragic loss. In recent years, the Congress has generously raised the amount of the military death gratuity to $100,000 and expanded eligibility to all in uniform. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred accounts that help with saving for retirement, health care, or the cost of education. Our legislation would allow families who already have given so much to contribute the death gratuity to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions. This legislation will not ease the pain of military families that suffer the loss of a loved one, but it can help families put their lives back together. It will enable military families to save more for retirement, education, and health care by being able to put the death gratuity payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate tax-free. These changes to our tax laws will help military families with some of their financial burdens. It can not repay the sacrifices that they have made for us, but it hopefully demonstrates the gratitude of a Nation that will not forget the families of the fallen.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, as Ranking Democrat on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I am introducing a reauthorization bill for the Small Business Administration's (SBA) 504 Loan Guaranty Program. This legislation goes beyond simply reauthorizing the 504 loan program. Not only does this bill provide adequate authorization levels in the 504 loan program, but it also takes on important oversight and accountability issues pertaining to the operation of Certified Development Companies (CDC). The issues that I will present in detail below are well overdue and failure on Congress's behalf to deal with them before the end of the fiscal year when the program expires will shortchange our borrowers, and ultimately our communities who reap the benefits of the local economic development that the 504 loan program is intended to provide. For more than 20 years, the 504 loan program has provided long-term financing for growing businesses with long-term (up to 20 years), fixed-rate financing for major fixed assets, such as purchasing land and making improvements, including existing buildings, grading, street improvements, utilities, parking lots and landscaping; construction of new facilities, or modernizing, renovating or converting existing facilities; or purchasing long-term machinery and equipment. The 504 loan is made through a collaboration between the Certified Development Company (which provides 40 percent of the financing), a private sector lender (covering up to 50 percent of the financing) and a contribution of at least 10 percent from the small business being helped. This program is a national leader in federal economic development finance programs and demonstrates it through, creating or retaining over 1.4 million jobs, backing more than $25 billion in loans, and leveraging over $30 billion in private investment. These incredible returns to our community could not be possible without the solid mission of the program that drives the types of projects and borrowers it serves. This program was not established to simply make loans--it was established to promote local economic development and to create jobs. I cannot think of another federal economic development program that has created over 605,000 jobs, as the 504 program has done. Last year alone, the 504 program created over 145,000 jobs. As the demand for 504 loans continues to grow, it is more important than ever to reaffirm the mission of the 504 program and to ensure that the 504 program is reauthorized at adequate levels to meet this growth. To address this issue, my bill reauthorizes the 504 Loan Program for three additional years at $8,500,000,000, fiscal year 07, $9,500,000,000 fiscal year 08, and $10,500,000,000, fiscal year 09. These levels are based on the current pace of program growth to ensure that there is more than adequate authorization. The fiscal year 06 504 demand is projected to exceed $7 billion, and the last 3 years have shown growth rates of 28 percent, 26 percent, and 26 percent. A low authorization level would either force the SBA to shut down the program or to ration credit throughout the year to avoid a shut-down. As I mentioned previously, this bill goes beyond simply reauthorizing the 504 loan program for an additional three years. It makes some much- needed changes to the structure of our CDCs, which are responsible for the delivery of this program and which are essential to the success of the 504 loan program. Year after year, I have heard about the dangers that structural changes pose to the CDC industry and the 504 loan program in maintaining the mission of economic development. One of the major changes experienced by CDCs includes the centralization of all 504 loan processing, loan servicing and liquidation functions from 70 SBA district offices to one or two centers in the country. This has resulted in a huge backlog, estimated at 900 loans waiting to be liquidated. This backlog results in a loss of revenue through delaying or completely writing off defaulted loans. This has the potential to drive up subsidy costs of the program and therefore fees on borrowers, CDCs and lenders. This bill puts forward a solution to this issue by decentralizing liquidation functions and allowing CDCs, if they choose, to foreclose and liquidate defaulted loans or to contract with a qualified third-party to perform foreclosure and liquidation of defaulted loans in its portfolio. However, CDCs are not required to liquidate until SBA has come up with a program to compensate and reimburse them for all expenses pertaining to foreclosure and liquidation. The expenses would be approved in advance by the Administrator or on an emergency basis. The biggest structural change that has had a tremendous impact on our not-for-profit CDCs is the ability to expand operations into multiple states. This structural change, in conjunction with the growing demand for 504 loans and CDC operations in providing these loans to small businesses, requires Congress to set a statutory course that preserves the local economic development intent and mission of the program through accountability measures. The 504 program was not created for CDCs to expand operations and simply create revenue from one state to another. CDCs are more than lenders and should not act like for-profit banks. My bill ensures that local communities continue to be the main focus of CDCs by requiring that the 25 members of their board and board of directors be residents of the area of operations. In addition, CDCs will be required to annually submit to the SBA a report on the use of all excess funds and local economic development activities in each state of operation. This ensures that the members engage, invest, and are held accountable to the communities they serve. In addition to preserving and growing the 504 loan program, I think it is very important to ensure that low-income communities have access to 504 loans. As you may know, in 2000 Congress enacted the New Markets Tax Credit program to facilitate private sector investment in low- income communities. Theoretically, the program was designed to encourage private investors who may never have considered investing in low-income communities to do so, thereby attracting new sources of private capital for a variety of projects, including retail, childcare and primary healthcare centers, which in turn attracts jobs, services and additional opportunities to areas that have historically had a difficult time sustaining economic development. My bill creates a new public policy goal for the ``expansion of businesses in low-income communities'' and defines low-income areas as those areas which would be eligible for new market tax credits. Under public policy goals, a borrower can get a higher loan than the standard limit of $1.5 million. For example, a borrower could receive a 504 loan of up to $2 million if the proceeds will be directed toward this new public policy goal, or any of the currently established eight public policy goals. It is my hope that this incentive will increase the number of 504 loans in low- income communities and therefore build wealth, economic security, and employment opportunities which benefit the entire surrounding community. I want to thank Senator Pryor for his sponsorship of this legislation, and thank the many members of the 504 community for working with us to identify ways to make this program better than ever. I look forward to working with them to enact this legislation before the fiscal year expires on September 30, 2006, and ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, every three years, our Committee reviews the majority of the Small Business Administration's (SBA) programs to see what's working, what's broken, and what can be improved. As ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee currently, and a member for more than 20 years, I have worked on many reauthorizations. I can tell you that the SBA reauthorization process is a great opportunity to examine programs, to work with the small business groups and SBA's partners--those who use these programs on a day-to-day basis--and the SBA, to ensure that they serve their intended purpose and make the dream of a small business a reality to those who might not be eligible for business loans through conventional lending, don't have an MBA but need some management counseling, or need help cutting through red tape to get government contracts. Today I am focusing on the SBA's largest small business programs. Specifically, I am introducing legislation to reauthorize the 7(a) Loan Guaranty Program for three years. This bill, the ``7(a) Loan Program Reauthorization Act of 2006,'' authorizes the SBA to back more than a combined $58 billion in 7(a) loans to small businesses, gives borrowers more options when choosing SBA financing, reduces program fees on borrowers and lenders if the government charges excess fees or has excess funding, creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development within SBA to increase the availability of capital to minorities, and creates a National Preferred Lenders program to streamline the application process for exemplary lenders to operate on a national basis and reach more borrowers. 7(a) loans are the most basic and widely used loan of the SBA business loan programs. These loans help qualified, small businesses obtain financing which is guaranteed for working capital, machinery and equipment, furniture and fixtures, land and building (including purchase, renovation and new construction), leasehold improvements, and debt refinancing, under special conditions. The loan maturity is up to 10 years for working capital and generally up to 25 years for fixed assets. A key concept of the 7(a) guaranty loan program is that the loan actually comes from a commercial lender, not the government. This excellent private/public partnership has made this program one of the agency's most popular, with over 400,000 approved loans in the past six years. Last year alone, almost 96,000 small businesses received $15 billion in 7(a) loans, creating or retaining an estimated 460,000 jobs. To ensure that we continue to have enough authorization levels to manage the increasing demand, my bill reauthorizes the 7(a) Loan Program for three additional years at $18,500,000,000 fiscal year 07, $19,500,000,000 fiscal year 08 and $20,500,000,000 fiscal year 09. These authorization levels ensure that program levels are sufficiently high to enable the SBA to back the maximum amount of loans as possible and avoid credit rationing or shutdowns. Providing appropriate authorization levels to adequately address the capital needs of small businesses is as important as ensuring that eligible borrowers have access to both fixed asset financing and working capital to address all of their small business needs. Currently, borrowers who need working capital under the 7(a) program and fixed asset financing through the 504 loan program are not able to utilize both SBA loan guaranty programs to their maximum amount and are therefore forced to choose between the two programs. To prevent a situation where a borrower is forced to choose between getting a much- needed facility or getting working capital, my bill specifies that the borrower can have financing under both loan programs at the maximum level, given they qualify for both programs. In previous years, both 7(a) and 504 loans were subsidized by appropriated funds to pay losses. It was therefore appropriate to restrict small businesses to choose between the two programs. However, both of these programs are now self- supporting, and it makes no sense to continue this restriction on borrowers. One of our jobs on the Committee is to make sure that SBA-backed financing remains affordable to the small business community. As I just referenced, the 7(a) program is now self-funding. The Administration insisted on eliminating all funding for the loans, shifting the cost to borrowers and lenders, by imposing higher fees on them. The administration spins this as a ``savings'' of $100 million to taxpayers while the small business community considers this a ``tax.'' In addition to this ``tax,'' the President's budget shows that borrowers and lenders already pay too much in fees, generating more than $800 million in overpayments since 1992 because the government routinely over-estimates the amount of fees needed to cover the cost of the program. This is part of the reason that many of us in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, opposed eliminating funding for the program. This legislation seeks to address overpayments by requiring the SBA to lower fees if borrowers and lenders pay more than is necessary to cover the program costs or if the Congress happens to appropriate money for the program and combined with fees there is excess funding to cover the cost of the program. The Senate adopted this provision, offered by me and Senator Landrieu last year, to the fiscal year 2006 Commerce Justice State Appropriations bill. In this reauthorization process, as I mentioned previously, I think it is important to look at specific programs and examine whether or not they are meeting their goals and intended mission. Part of the agency's mission is to fill the financing gap left by the private sector. According to a recent study by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Business Loan Express, availability of capital remains a priority for all small businesses, but for Hispanics and African Americans, it is one of their top three concerns. They are still more likely to use credit cards to finance their businesses, and they fear denial from lenders. Knowing of this need, I was deeply disappointed to see that although SBA's loan programs have increased lending overall, the figures surrounding the percentage of small business loans going to African-Americans, Hispanics, Asian Americans and women have not changed much since 2001. The administration will tell you that SBA has been ``highly successful'' in making business loans to minority groups facing competitive opportunity challenges. They claim that in fiscal year 2005, almost 30 percent of 7(a) loans and about 25 percent of 504 loans were made to minority groups. However, according to the SBA's own data, since 2001, while numbers of 7(a) loans have gone up for African Americans, the dollars have remained at 3 percent of all money loaned. In the 504 program, loans to women have decreased from 19 percent in number to 15 percent, and dropped from 16 percent to 14 percent in dollars. In the Microloan program, African Americans received 28 percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 as compared to only 21 percent of the total number of loans made in 2005. Their microloan dollars have also decreased from $7.1 million to $5.7 million in 2005. Native Americans went from 2 percent of the total number of microloans made in 2001 to less than one percent--a mere .93 percent-- in 2005. These statistics are of great concern and demonstrate that the SBA has not been highly successful in playing an active role in fostering and encouraging robust entrepreneurial activity and small business ownership amongst these minority groups. The stagnant percentage of small business loans in these communities represents a failure of this Administration to provide an alternative means of obtaining capital to our underserved communities where funding has not been available throughout conventional lending methods. To break this trend and increase the proportion of small business loans to minorities, and the percentage of loans to African Americans, Hispanics, and Asians relative to their share of the population, my bill creates an Office of Minority Small Business Development at the SBA, similar to offices devoted to business development of veterans and women and rural areas. In charge of the office will be the Associate Administrator for Minority Small Business and Capital Ownership Development with expanded authority and an annual budget to carry out its mission. Currently this position is limited to carrying out the policies and programs of SBA's contracting programs required under sections 7(j) and 8(a) of the Small Business Act. To make sure that minorities are getting a great share of loan dollars, venture capital investments, counseling, and contracting, this bill expands its authority and duties to work with and monitor the outcomes for programs under Capital Access, Entrepreneurial Development, and Government Contracting. It also requires the head of the Office to work with SBA's partners, trade associations, and business groups to identify more effective ways to market to minority business owners, and to work with the head of Field Operations to ensure that district offices have staff and resources to market to minorities. The latter is important because when SBA implemented its extensive workforce transformation plans several years ago, it eliminated lending-related jobs with a partial justification that remaining staff would be trained to do outreach and marketing to the community. However, district offices are not provided with sufficient funds or resources to do the job. In addition to setting sufficient program levels, giving our borrowers maximum loan options, reaching the underrepresented, and lowering fees to our borrowers, my bill makes great improvements in our lender operations. Lenders are key to providing these loans to small business borrowers throughout our nation. An exceptional lender in the 7(a) program will often become a ``preferred lender,'' with the authority to approve, close, service and liquidate loans without the lender obtaining the prior specific approval of the agency. SBA requires that lenders request preferred lender status in each of the 70 districts it desires to operate. There are many problems with this system, and this bill streamlines and makes uniform the process, an advantage to borrowers, lenders and the SBA. This preferred lender problem is not a new issue. During our last reauthorization in 2003, lenders complained that applying for lending autonomy in each of the 70 district office and branches is administratively burdensome, both for them and for the Agency staff, and that some district offices have taken advantage of the power to approve or disapprove lenders when they apply for this special lending status. I was very disappointed that this issue was not resolved in our last reauthorization. My bill attempts to alleviate this administrative burden on lenders and SBA staff who must process the application. My bill creates a National Preferred Lenders Program to allow lenders that have already demonstrated proficiency as a preferred lender the authority to operate in any state where it desires to make loans. To ensure that national preferred lenders are proficient and experienced, this bill requires the Administrator, no later than 60 days after enactment, to establish eligibility criteria for national preferred lenders but suggests that the criteria established include several things--consideration of whether the lender has experience as a preferred lender in not fewer than 5 district offices of the Administration for a minimum of 3 years in each territory, uniform written policies on the 7(a) loan program, including centralized loan approval, servicing, and liquidation functions and processes that are satisfactory to the administration. If a national preferred lender fails to meet the eligibility requirements established by the Administrator, the lender shall be notified of this deficiency and allowed a reasonable time for correction. Failure to correct the deficiency may result in suspension or revocation as a national preferred lender. Last, my legislation directs the SBA to establish a simple and straightforward alternative size standard for business loan applicants under section 7(a), similar to what is already available for borrowers in the 504 loan program, which utilizes maximum tangible net worth and average net income as an alternative to the use of industry standards. Currently, in order to be eligible for an SBA business loan, the borrower must meet the definition of small businesses. Pursuant to the Small Business Act, SBA has promulgated size standards by industry utilizing the North American Industry Classification System. The SBA table based on this system is over 20 pages, single-spaced, which has made this size standard very complicated for lenders to utilize. In closing, I want to commend the community of 7(a) lenders for the tens of thousands of borrowers they reach every year, and for working with us to understand how to improve the program to attract more lenders and reach more borrowers. I hope that the Committee will act on this bill and other similar reauthorization bills before the current laws governing the 7(a) loan program expire on September 30, 2006. I ask unanimous consent that my remarks be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 39 years ago this week Dr. Martin Luther King gave a speech at the Riverside Church in New York about the war in Vietnam. He began with these words: I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. His message was clear. Despite the difficulty of opposing the government's policy during time of war, he said, ``We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak.'' I am here today to speak about Iraq. There should be humility enough to go around for a Congress that shares responsibility for this war. I believe the time has come again when, as Dr. King said, we must move past indecision to action. I have many times visited the Vietnam Memorial Wall, as many Vietnam veterans have. When you walk down the path of either side of that wall, east and west of the panels, you walk down to the center of the wall where it comes together in a V. That V represents both the beginning of the war and the end of the war because the names start at that V and go all the way up one end, east, and then they come back from the west. I remember standing there once after reading ``A Bright Shining Lie,'' by Neil Sheehan, Robert McNamara's memoirs, and many other histories of that war. One cannot help but feel the enormity of the loss, of the immorality that our leaders knew that the strategy was wrong and that almost half the names were added to that wall after the time that people knew our strategy would not work. It was immoral then and it would be immoral now to engage in the same delusion with respect to our policy in Iraq. Obviously, every single one of us would prefer to see democracy in Iraq. We want democracy in the whole Middle East. The simple reality is, Iraqis must want it as much as we do, and Iraqis must embrace it. If the Iraqi leadership is not ready to make the changes and the compromises that democracy requires, our soldiers, no matter how valiant--and they have been valiant--can't get from a humvee or a helicopter. The fact is, our soldiers have done a stunning job. I was recently in Iraq with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens. I have been there previously. No one can travel there and talk to our soldiers and not be impressed by their commitment to the mission, by their sacrifice, by their desire to have something good come out of this, and by the remarkable contribution they have made to give Iraqis the opportunity to create a democratic future for their country. Our soldiers have done their job. It is time for the newly elected Iraqi leadership to do theirs. It is time for America's political leaders to do theirs. President Bush says we can't lose our nerve in Iraq. It takes more nerve to respond to mistakes and to adjust a policy that is going wrong than it does to stubbornly continue down the wrong path. Last week, Secretary Rice acknowledged ``thousands'' of mistakes in Iraq. Amazingly, nobody has been held accountable for those mistakes. But our troops have paid the price, and our troops pay the price every single day. Yet the President continues to insist on a vague and counterproductive strategy that will keep U.S. forces in Iraq indefinitely. I accept my share of responsibility for the war in Iraq. As I said in 2004, knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war, and I certainly wouldn't have done it the way the President did. My frustration is that many of us all along the way have offered alternatives to the President. Countless numbers of Senators, Republican and Democrat alike, have publicly offered alternative ways of trying to achieve our goals in Iraq. I have listened to my colleagues, Senator Feingold, Senator Biden, Senator Hagel, the Presiding Officer, and others all talk about ways in which we could do better. But all of these, almost all of them without exception, have been left by the wayside without any real discussion, without any real dialog, without any real effort to see if we could find a common ground. My frustration is that we keep offering alternatives. In 2003, in 2004, 2005, 2006, year after year, we put them on the table, but they get ignored and then we get further in the hole, the situation gets worse, and we are left responding, trying to come back to a worse situation than the one we were responding to in the first place. And we keep putting out possibilities, and the possibilities keep being left on the sidelines. Time after time, this administration has ignored the best advice of the best experts of the country, whether they be our military experts or former civilian leaders of other administrations or our most experienced voices on the Committee on Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committee of the U.S. House and Senate. The administration is fond of saying that we shouldn't look back, that recrimination only helps our enemies, that we have to deal with the situation on the ground now. Well, we do have to deal with the situation on the ground now, but we have to deal with it in a way that honors the suggestions and ideas of a lot of other people who have concerns about our forces on the ground and our families at home and our budget and our reputation in the world and our need to respond to Afghanistan, North Korea, and Iran. Frankly, accountability and learning from past mistakes is the only way to improve both policies and institutions. Let me, for the moment, go along with this idea, the administration's idea. Let me focus on the here and now and let's face that reality honestly and let's act accordingly. You have to live in a fantasy world to believe we are on the brink of domestic peace and a pluralistic democracy in Iraq. One has to be blind to the facts to argue that the prospects for success are so great they outweigh the terrible costs of the President's approach. And you have to be incapable of admitting failure not to be able to face up to the need to change course now. Yes, change course now. Our soldiers on the ground have learned a lot of terrible lessons in Iraq. All you have to do is talk to some of the soldiers who have returned, as many of us have. It is time those of us responsible for the policies of our country learn those lessons. It is clear the administration's litany of mistakes has reduced what we can reasonably hope to accomplish. Any reasonable, honest observer--and there are many in the Senate who have gone over to Iraq and have come back with these views--knows that the entire definition of this mission has changed and the expectations of what we can get out of this mission have changed. I, for one, will not sit idly by and watch while American soldiers give their lives for a policy that is not working. Let me say it plainly. Withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq over the course of the year in a timely schedule is actually necessary to give democracy the best chance to succeed, and it is vital to America's national security interests. Five months ago, I went to Georgetown University. I gave a speech where I said that we were then entering the make-or-break period, a make-or-break 5-month, 6-month period in Iraq. I said the President must change course and hold Iraqis accountable or Congress should insist on a change in policy. And I set a goal then, back in November, that we should try to reduce American combat forces and withdraw them by the end of this year. The situation on the ground has now changed for the worse since then. In fact, we are now in the third war in Iraq in as many years. The first war was against Saddam Hussein and his alleged weapons of mass destruction. The second war was against Jihadist terrorists whom the administration said it was better to fight over there than over here. And now we find our troops in the middle of a low-grade civil war that could explode into a full civil war at any time. While the events in Iraq have changed for the worse, the President has not changed course for the better. It is time for those of us in Congress who share responsibilities constitutionally for our policy to stand up and change that course. We have a constitutional responsibility, and we have a moral responsibility not to sit on the sidelines while young Americans are in harm's way. That is why today I am introducing legislation that will hold the Iraqis accountable and make the goal of withdrawing the most American forces a reality. I personally believe that most of those forces could be and should be out of Iraq by the end of the year. This war, in the words of our own generals, cannot be won militarily. It can only be won politically. General Casey said, of our large military presence, it ``feeds the notion of occupation'' and it ``extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant.'' That is General Casey saying that the large force of American presence in Iraq contributes to the occupation and extends the amount of time. Zbigniew Brzezinski put it: The U.S. umbrella, which is in effect designed to stifle these wars but it is so poor that it perpetuates them, in a sense keeps these wars alive . . . and [is] probably unintentionally actually intensifying them. Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, breaking a 30- year silence, summed it up simply: Our presence is what feeds the insurgency. The bottom line is that as long as American forces remain in large numbers, enforcing the status quo, Americans will be killed and maimed in a crossfire of vicious conflict that they are powerless to end. We pay for the President's reluctance to face reality in both American dollars and in too many lives. American families pay in the loss of limb and the loss of loved ones. I don't think we should tolerate what is happening in Iraq today. We can no longer tolerate the political games currently being played by Iraqi politicians in a war-torn Baghdad. No American soldier, not one American soldier, should be sacrificed for the unwillingness of Iraqi politicians to compromise and form a unity government. We are now almost 5 months since the election. What is happening is the daily game being played by Iraqis who listen to the President say we will be here to the end. There is no sense of urgency, there is no sense of impending need to make a decision. The result is they just go on bickering and they go on playing for advantage while our troops drive by the next IED and the next soldier returns to Walter Reed or to Bethesda without arms and limbs. Given the recent increase in deadly sectarian strife, Iraq urgently needs a strong unity government to prevent a full-fledged civil war from breaking out and becoming the failed state that all of us have wanted to avoid. I believe the current situation is actually allowing them to go down the road toward that sectarian strife rather than stopping them. Thus far, step by step, Iraqis have only responded to deadlines. It took a deadline to transfer authority to the provisional government. It took a deadline for the first election to take place. It took a deadline for the referendum on the Constitution. It took a deadline for the most recent election. It is time for another deadline, and that deadline is to say to them that they have to come together and pull together and put together a government or our troops are going to withdraw. And under circumstances over a period of time, we will withdraw in order to put Iraq up on its own two feet. Iraqi politicians should be told in unmistakable language: You have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. I know some colleagues and other people listening will say: Wait a minute. You mean we are going to automatically withdraw our military if they don't pull it together? The answer is: You bet we ought to do that. Because there isn't one American soldier who ought to be giving up life or limb for the procrastination and unwillingness of Iraqis who have been given an extraordinary opportunity by those soldiers to take hold of democracy and who are ignoring it and playing for advantage. We all know that after the last elections, the momentum was lost by squabbling interim leaders. Everybody sat around and said, coming up to this election, the one thing we can't do is allow the momentum to be lost. Guess what. It has been lost. It has been squandered, again. We are sitting there with occasional visits, occasional speeches but without the kind of sustained diplomacy necessary to provide a resolution. It has gone on for too long, again. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in 5 months, then how long does it take and what does it take? If they are not willing to do it, they are not willing to do it. It is that simple. The civil war will only get worse. And if they are not willing to do it, it is because there is such a fundamental intransigence that we haven't broken, that civil war, in fact, becomes inevitable, and our troops will be forced to leave anyway. The fact is, we have no choice but to get tough and to ratchet up the pressure. We should immediately accelerate the redeployment of American forces to rear guard, garrisoned status for security backup, training, and emergency response. Special operations against al-Qaida in Iraq should be initiated on hard intelligence leads only. If the Iraqi leaders finally do their job, which I believe you have a better chance of getting them to do if you give them a timetable, then we have to agree on a schedule for leaving, withdrawing American combat forces by the end of the year. The only troops that remain should be those critical to finishing the job of standing up Iraqi security forces. Such an agreement will have positive benefits in Iraq. It will empower and legitimize the new leadership and the Iraqi people. It will expedite the process of getting the Iraqis to assume a larger role of running their own country. And it will undermine support for the insurgency among the now 80 percent of Iraqis who want U.S. troops to leave. In short, it will give the new Iraqi Government the best chance to succeed in holding the country together while democratic institutions can evolve. This deadline makes sense when you look at the responsibilities that Iraqis should have assumed by then. Formation of a unity government would constitute a major milestone in the transfer of political responsibility to the Iraqis. Even the President has said that responsibility for security in the majority of the country should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time. If the President believes that it should be able to be transferred to the Iraqis by this time, why not push that eventuality and make it a reality? By the end of the year, our troops will have done as much as they possibly can to give Iraqis the chance to build a democracy. I again remind my colleagues, we are still going to have the ability to have over-the- horizon response for emergency, as well as over-the-horizon response to al-Qaida. And we will have the ability to continue to train those last forces to make sure they are in a position to stand up for Iraq. The key to this transition is a long overdue engagement in serious and sustained diplomacy. I want to say a word about this. I am not offering this plan in a vacuum. Critical to the achievement of all of our goals in Iraq is real diplomacy. Starting with the leadup to the war, our diplomatic efforts in Iraq have ranged from the indifferent to the indefensible. History shows that effective diplomacy requires persistent hands-on engagement from the highest levels of America's leadership. Top officials in the first Bush administration worked directly and tirelessly to put together a real coalition before the first Gulf War, and President Clinton himself took personal responsibility at Camp David for bringing the Israelis and Palestinians together and leading the comprehensive effort to resolve the conflict in the Middle East. This type of major diplomatic initiative has proven successful in many places in American history. Most recently, in 1995, there was a brutal civil war in Bosnia involving Serbs, Croats, and Muslims. Faced with a seemingly intractable stalemate in the midst of horrific ethnic cleansing, the Clinton administration took action--direct, personal, engaged action. Led by Richard Holbrooke, they brought leaders of the Bosnian parties together in Dayton, OH, with representatives from the European Union, Russia, and Britain to hammer out a peace agreement. NATO and the United Nations were given a prominent role in implementing what became known as the Dayton Accords. In contrast, this President Bush has done little more than deliver political speeches, while his cronies in the White House and outside blame the news media for the mess the administration has created in Iraq. We keep hearing: They are not telling the full story. They are not telling the story. Secretary of State Rice's brief surprise visit to Iraq a few days ago pales in comparison to the real shuttle diplomacy that was practiced by predecessors such as James Baker and Henry Kissinger. Given what is at stake, it is long since time to engage in that. I can remember Henry Kissinger going from one capital to the next capital, back and forth, engaged, pulling people together. Jim Baker did the same thing. There was a genuine and real effort to leverage the full prestige and full power of the United States behind a goal. That is absent here. Ambassador Khalilzad is a good man, and he has done a terrific job, almost by himself, left almost to his own devices. That is not the way to succeed. Given what is at stake, it is past time to engage in diplomacy that matches the effort of our soldiers on the ground. We should immediately bring the leaders of the Iraqi factions together at a Dayton-like summit that includes our allies, Iraq's neighbors, members of the Arab League, and the United Nations. The fact is, a true national compact is needed to bring about a political solution to the insurgency. That is how you end the sectarian violence. Our soldiers going on patrol in a striker or a humvee, walking through communities will not end this violence. Our generals have told us, it can only be ended politically. Yet where is the kind of political effort that our Nation has seen in history now, trying to effect what our soldiers have created an opportunity to effect through their sacrifice? Iraqis have to reach a comprehensive agreement that includes security guarantees, disbanding the militias, and ultimately, though not necessarily at this conference, confronting some of the questions of the Constitution. All of the parties must reach agreement on a process for reviving reconstruction efforts and securing Iraq's borders. Our troops cannot be left hanging out there without that kind of effort to protect them. At this summit, Shiite religious leaders must agree to rein in their militias and to commit to disbanding them. They also have to work with Iraqi political leaders to ensure that the leadership of the Interior Ministry and the police force under its control is nonsectarian. Shiite and Kurdish leaders must make concessions necessary to address Sunni concerns about federalism and equitable distribution of oil revenues. There is no way the Sunnis are going to suddenly disband or stop the insurgency without some kind of adequate guarantee of their security and their participation in the process. That was obvious months ago. It is even more obvious today. It still remains an open question. The Sunnis have to accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. Until a sufficient compromise is hammered out, a Sunni base cannot be created that isolates the hard-core Baathists and jihadists and defuses the insurgency itself. We must work with Iraqis at the summit to convince Iraq's neighbors that they can no longer stand on the sidelines while Iraq teeters on the edge of a civil war that could bring chaos to the entire region. Where they can help the process of forming a government, they need to step up. And for my colleagues who suggest that somehow withdrawing American forces will put that region at greater risk, I say ``no.'' I say that an over-the- horizon deployment, a deployment in Kuwait and elsewhere, diffusing the insurgency, and an adequate effort to diplomatically pull together this kind of summit is the only way to diffuse the insurgency and ultimately strengthen the region. The administration must also work with Iraqi leaders in seeking a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until finally a national army of Iraq has developed the capacity to do that itself. Frankly, such a force, if sanctioned by the United Nations Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors, countries such as India and others, that would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and of encouraging capital to flow into Iraq. To be credible with the Iraqi people, the new government must deliver goods and services at all levels. It is absolutely stunning--I don't know how many Americans are even aware of the fact--that today, several years later, electricity production is below where it was before the war. It is at 4,000 megawatts compared to the 4,500 before the war. Crude oil production has declined from a prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per day to 1.9 million barrels per day. We were told that oil was going to pay for this war. That has to change. Countries that have promised money for reconstruction, particularly of Sunni areas, haven't paid up yet. The money is not on the table. We can also do our part on the ground. Our own early reconstruction efforts were--now known to everybody--poorly planned and grossly mismanaged. But as I saw on a recent trip to Iraq, the efforts of our civilian military provisional reconstruction teams, which have the skills and capacity to strengthen governance and institution building around the country, are beginning to take hold. We need to stand up more of those teams as fast as possible. If we do that in the same context as we find the political resolution, then you have a chance. We must also continue to turn the job of policing the streets and providing security over to Iraqi forces. That means giving our generals the tools they need to finish training an Iraqi police force that is trusted and respected on the street by the end of the year. It also means finishing the training of Iraqi security forces with U.S. troops acting only on the basis of hard intelligence to combat terrorist threats. The withdrawal of American forces from Iraq is necessary not only to give democracy in Iraq the best chance to succeed, it is also vital to our own national security interests. We need to pay more attention to our own vital national security interests. We will never be as safe as we ought to be if Iraq continues to distract us from the most important war we need to win--the war on Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida, and the terrorists who are resurfacing even in Afghanistan. To make it clear, despite everything this administration has said, today, al-Qaida, and the Taliban, even, are more dangerous in northwest Pakistan and northeast Afghanistan than Iraq is to us at this moment in time. There is a greater threat from al-Qaida, which has dispersed cells and through its training and abilities to organize, in Afghanistan than in the place that is consuming most of America's forces and money. The way to defeat al-Qaida is not by serving as their best recruitment tool. Even Brent Scowcroft, George H. W. Bush's National Security Adviser, has joined the many experts who agree that the war in Iraq actually feeds terrorism and increases the potential for terrorist attacks against the United States. The results speak for themselves: The number of significant terrorist attacks around the world increased from 175 in 2003 to 651 in 2004, and it has continued to increase in 2005. The President keeps talking about al-Qaida's intent to take over Iraq. I have not met anybody in Iraq--none of the leaders on either side, not Kurds, the Shia, or Sunni--who believes a few thousand, at most--and by many estimates, less than a thousand--foreign jihadists are a genuine threat to forcibly take over a country of 25 million people. And while mistake after mistake by this administration has actually turned Iraq into the breeding ground for al-Qaida that it was not before the war, large numbers of United States troops are not the key to crushing these terrorists. In fact, Iraqis have begun to make clear their own unwillingness to tolerate foreign jihadists. Every Iraqi I talked to said to me: When we get control and start moving forward, we will deal with the jihadists. They don't want them on Iraqi soil, and they have increasingly turned on these brutal foreign killers who are trying to foment a civil war among Iraqis. This process will only be complete when Iraqis have taken full responsibility for their own future, and resistance to a perceived occupation no longer provides them any common cause with jihadists. As General Anthony Zinni said on Sunday, building up intelligence- gathering capability from Iraqis is essential to defeating the insurgency. He said: We're not fighting the Waffen S.S. here. They can be policed up if the people turn against them. We haven't won the hearts and minds yet. Once again, I remind my colleagues, the hearts and minds of the Iraqis will be more susceptible to being won when American forces are not there in the way they are now, in a way that can be used as the recruitment tool that it has been, when 80 percent of the Iraqi people suggest that American forces ought to leave. After the bulk of U.S. forces have been withdrawn, I believe it is essential to keep a rapid reaction force over the horizon. That force can be over the horizon within the desert itself, or it can be in Kuwait, and that can be used to act against terrorist enclaves. Our air power--the air power we used to police two-thirds of the no-fly zone in Iraq before the war--will always ensure our ability to bring overwhelming force to bear to protect the U.S. interests in the region. The bottom line is that working together with Iraqis from inside and outside Iraq, we can prosecute the war against al-Qaida in Iraq more effectively than we are today. Withdrawing U.S. troops will also enable us to more effectively combat threats around the world. But winning the war on terror requires more than the killing we have seen from 3 years of combat. The fact is that just taking out terrorists, as our troops have been doing, is not going to end the flow of terrorists who are recruited, for all of the reasons that we understand. The cooperation critical to lasting victory in the region is going to be enhanced when Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, civil chaos, and mistake after mistake in Iraq no longer deplete America's moral authority within the region. This is also key to allowing us to repair the damage that flag officers fear has been done to our Armed Forces. I know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--members of the Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee--have heard from flag officers in private about what is happening to the Armed Forces of our country. We know it will take billions of dollars to reset the equipment that has been lost, damaged, or worn out from 3 years of combat. In the National Guard alone, units across the country have only 34 percent of their authorized equipment, including just 14 percent of the chemical decontamination equipment they need. That is a chilling prospect if they are ever asked to respond to a terrorist incident involving weapons of mass destruction. The fact is the Army is stretched too thin. Soldiers and brigades are being deployed more frequently and longer than the Army believes is best in order to continue to attract the best recruits. Recruiting standards have been changed and recruitment is suffering. The Army fell 6,700 recruits short of their needs in 2005--the largest shortfall since 1979. Recruitment is suffering today. Not only are American troops not getting leadership equal to their sacrifice on the civilian side, but our generals are not getting enough troops to accomplish their mission of keeping the country safe. The fact is that in the specialties--special forces, translators, intelligence officers, for the Marines, for the Army, for the National Guard--our recruitments are below the levels they ought to be. Withdrawing from Iraq will also enable us to strengthen our efforts to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Iran, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, is absolutely delighted with our presence in Iraq. Why? Because it advances their goals, keeping us otherwise occupied, and it allows them to make mischief in Iraq itself at their choice. Their President is so emboldened that he has openly called for the destruction of Israel, while defying the international community's demands to stop developing its nuclear weapons capability. Could that have happened prior to our being bogged down the way we are? North Korea has felt at liberty to ignore the six-party talks, while it continues to stockpile more nuclear weapons material. Any effort to be stronger in dealing with the nuclear threat from Iran and North Korea is incomplete without an exit from Iraq. It will also enable us to more effectively promote democracy in places such as Russia, which is more than content to see us bogged down while President Putin steadily rolls back democratic reforms. China benefits from us throwing hundreds of billions of dollars into Iraq instead of into economic competition and job creation here at home. Our long-term security requires putting the necessary resources into building our economy and a workforce that can compete and win in the age of globalization. We cannot do as much as we need to--not nearly as much as we need to--while the war in Iraq is draining our treasury. Finally, we have not provided anywhere near the resources necessary to keep our homeland safe. Katrina showed us in the most graphic way possible that 5 years after 9/11, we are woefully unprepared to handle a natural disaster that we know is coming a week in advance, let alone a catastrophic terrorist attack we have no notice of. Removing the financial strain of Iraq will free up funds for America's homeland defense. The time has come for the administration to acknowledge the realities that the American people are increasingly coming to understand--the realities in Iraq and the requirements of America's national security. Stop telling us that terrible things will happen if we get tough with the Iraqis, when terrible things happen every single day because we are not tough enough. If we don't change course and hold the Iraqis accountable now, I guarantee you it will get worse. Ignoring all of the warnings, and ignoring history itself, in a flourish of ideological excess, this administration has managed to make the ancient cradle of civilization look a lot like Vietnam. But there is a path forward if we start making the right decisions. As Dr. King said so many years ago: The choice is ours, and though we might prefer it otherwise, we must choose in this crucial moment of human history. Now is the moment of choice for Iraq, for America, and for this Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program, legislation aimed at addressing this Nation's growing economic disparities through entrepreneurship and business development. It is the spirit of entrepreneurship that has made America's economy the best in the world. And it is through the energy and vitality of the small business sector that we will help all sectors of American society benefit from our robust economy. Exactly one year ago, the National Urban League released a report on the State of Black America, which discussed the growing economic gap between African Americans and their white counterparts. The report states that the median net worth of an African American family is $6,100 compared with $67,000 for a white family. The report makes clear that closing the racial wealth gap needs to be at the forefront of the civil rights agenda moving into the twenty-first century. Disproportionate unemployment figures for minorities versus their white counterparts have also been a persistent problem. Even as the administration has been touting the current low nationwide unemployment rate, the African American unemployment rate was 9.5 percent, the Hispanic unemployment rate was 6 percent, while the unemployment rate for whites averaged 4.1 percent. As the Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have received firsthand testimony and countless reports documenting the positive economic impact that occurs when we foster entrepreneurship in underserved communities. There are signs of significant economic returns when minority businesses are created and are able to grow in size and capacity. Between 1987 and 1997, revenue from minority owned firms rose by 22.5 percent, an increase equivalent to an annual growth rate of 10 percent and employment opportunities within minority owned firms increased by 23 percent during that same period. There is a clear correlation between the growth of minority owned firms and the economic viability of the minority community. We have come a long way, but we still have a long way to go if this country is going to keep the promise made to all its citizens of the American dream. In 2005, African Americans accounted for 12.3 percent of the population and only 4 percent of all U.S. businesses. Hispanics Americans represent 12.5 percent of the U.S. population and approximately 6 percent of all U.S. businesses. Native Americans account for approximately 1 percent of the population and .9 percent of all U.S. businesses. We can, and should do something to address what is essentially an inequality of opportunity. I have long argued that there is a compelling interest for the Federal Government to create opportunities for business and economic development in all communities--throughout this Nation. It is appropriate for the Federal Government to lead the efforts and find innovative solutions to the racial disparities that exist in this country, whether they are in healthcare, education, or economics. Economic disparities in this country are a very complex issue, particularly when racial demographics are involved. I am well aware that there is no one-size-fits-all solution and there is no single piece of legislation that will level the playing field. However, I strongly believe that education and entrepreneurship can help to close the gap in business ownership and the wealth gap that exists in this country. Many minorities are already turning to entrepreneurship as a means of realizing the American dream. According to U.S. Census data, Hispanics are opening businesses 3 times faster than the national average. Business development and entrepreneurship have played a significant role in the expansion of the black middle class in this country for over a century. The Minority Entrepreneurship and Innovation Pilot Program offers a competitive grant to Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Tribal Colleges, and HispanicServing Institutions to create an entrepreneurship curriculum at these institutions and to open Small Business Development Centers on campus to serve local businesses. The colleges and universities that participate in this program will foster entrepreneurship among their students, the best and brightest of the minority community, and develop a pool of talented entrepreneurs that are essential to innovation, job creation, and closing the wealth gap. The bill would make 24 grants, for $1 million each, available to institutions that include entrepreneurship and innovation as a part of their organizational mission and open a business-counseling center for those graduates that start their own businesses as well as the surrounding community of existing business owners. The goal of this program is to target students who have skills in highly skilled fields such as engineering, manufacturing, science and technology, and guide them towards entrepreneurship as a career option. Minority-owned businesses already participate in a wide variety of industries, but are disproportionately represented in traditionally lowgrowth and low- opportunity service sectors. Promoting entrepreneurial education to undergraduate students at colleges and universities expands the pool of potential business owners to technology, financial services, legal services, and other non-traditional areas in which the overall development of minority firms has been slow. Growing the size and capacity of existing minority firms and promoting entrepreneurship among minority students already committed to higher education will have a direct relationship on the employment rate, income levels and wealth creation of minorities throughout the nation. The funds are also to be used to open a Small Business Development Center (SBDC) on the campus of the institution to assist in capacity building, innovation and market niche development, and to offer traditional business counseling, similar to other SBDCs. The one-to-one counseling offered by the business specialists at these centers has proven to be the most effective model available for making entrepreneurs run more effective, more efficient, and more successful businesses. By placing the centers on campus, the institutions will be able to leverage the $1 million grant for greater returns and coordinate efforts with the school's academic departments to maximize the efficacy of the program. While the funding in this bill is modest relative to the multi- billion dollar budgets we discuss on a daily basis, these funds can go a long way and be leveraged to create economic growth in the most needed areas of this country. With this legislation, we will help foster long-term innovation and competitiveness in the small business sector. Mr. President, this bill is a small investment in the future of this country that I am sure will do much to foster economic growth in our minority communities and beyond. I urge my colleagues to join me as cosponsors of this important piece of legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to honor the life and service of an inspiring trooper from the Massachusetts State Police, Kathleen M. Foley Barrett. Kathleen dedicated 27 years of her life to protecting the people of Massachusetts, and I join her colleagues and family in paying tribute to a career defined by compassion, professionalism, and a sustained love of police work. A native of Cambridge, MA, Kathleen was raised and educated in Weymouth. Initially she considered nursing school, but Kathleen's passion for police work started her on a career path that few women were encouraged to follow at the time. Kathleen ultimately earned the chance to join the 62nd Recruit Training Troop in November 1980. After working on the force for 5 years, Kathleen was promoted to the level of master trainer on the State Police K-9 Unit. She bonded instantly with the specially trained canine teams and rose to such prominence that her expertise was called upon to lead seminars and provide instruction on cadaver work. Beyond the borders of Massachusetts, Kathleen was called upon to help the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the rescue efforts following the September 11th terrorist attacks in New York. Two thousand four brought the unfortunate cancer diagnosis that would ultimately claim her, but even that news could not keep her from coming to the aid of her fellow citizens in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. Kathleen loved police work, and her colleagues loved her. Over the course of her career she belonged to the State Police Association of Massachusetts, the North American Police Work Dog Association, and the International Association of Police Work Dogs. Her love of animals defined her private life as well as her professional one, and she enjoyed swimming with manatees and feeding bottleneck tigers at Florida's Amazing Exotics Education Center. As the cancer progressed and the end approached, law enforcement officers from around the Commonwealth and across the country made sure Kathleen knew how much she was valued and respected. State Police Colonel Thomas G. Robbins honored her at her bedside with the Colonel's Award of Excellence, a tribute bestowed on only seven troopers in Massachusetts history. Officers of every stripe bowed their heads upon news of her death on March 23, 2006. Mr. President, Kathleen's characteristic perseverance stands as an inspiration and challenge to us all. She lived an American life, one of service and struggle, and throughout it all she was guided by an unshakable commitment to her family, her job, and her colleagues. We are thankful for her time with us, we are better for her time here, and I join every Massachusetts State trooper in serving witness to the loss of an exemplary law enforcement officer.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say about my colleague, the senior Senator from Massachusetts, that in the 44 years he has been here, he has been one of the Senate's--the Senate's, probably--leading spokespeople for a fair, sensible, value-based approach to immigration. I have been here for a couple of the fights on immigration we have had, having come to the Senate in 1985. But I have never seen somebody as careful and as deliberative and as thoughtful about how to balance the equities that are involved in this issue and, most importantly, somebody who never forgets what defines this country. It is not just immigrants who understand what Senator Kennedy has been fighting for. It is those who really understand, such as the people Senator Kennedy was talking about--Bill Kristol, George Will and others, conservatives who understand the values as well as the pragmatic issues which define this question of immigration. So I thank my colleague for his many years of leadership on this and for the experience which he brings to the debate. Obviously, this debate matters enormously to our country. There is no doubt that Americans in every State in the Union and people around the world are watching what we do and how we do it. We have witnessed a remarkable demonstration of public protest and of civic participation in cities across America. In the Senate, in our communities, we are once again wrestling with difficult issues. These are not easy. Nobody is suggesting they are easy. But the question of immigration reform is an issue that goes to the heart of who we are as a people and that defines us as a nation. It is an issue that has historically divided us, revealing that sometimes humanity and courage are side by side with isolationism and fear and sometimes, sadly, even bigotry. We may be divided today, as we try to figure out how we are going to go forward here, but I don't think there is any Senator who disagrees about our past and our heritage as a nation of immigrants, of people who have come to the United States in search of a better life and freedom, of opportunity, and who want to have their voices heard. We also all agree that our current immigration system is broken. We agree that more resources have to be sent to the border in order to strengthen enforcement, to add more Border Patrol agents, and invest in new technologies. I spent a number of years as a prosecutor. I didn't have to deal directly with immigration at the county level, but I certainly saw what a lack of resources did, in a prosecutor's office, to our ability to pick the crimes that we were prosecuting, our ability to prioritize certain kinds of crimes to move through the judicial system. The fact is, had it not been back in those days for an extraordinary infusion of Federal dollars through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, we never could have done half the things we did--like priority prosecution so you could take any felony from arrest to conviction in 90 days, Federal money made that difference; where we could have a rape counseling unit, one of the first in the country, Federal money made that difference; where we could have a victim witness assistance program so people would be helped through the criminal justice system, Federal money made that difference. Here we are with less border guards on our 2,000-mile border than we have police officers in the City of New York. They don't have the resources. So as we stand here and debate this issue in the Senate, we need to be honest about our own responsibility for the situation we find ourselves in today. This is not something a Republican President did or a Democratic President did or a Republican Congress/Democratic Congress. It is something the United States has allowed to take shape over the last 30, 40, 50 years. It is not new. And you can't come in and sort of bring down a wall and say: OK, we are going to do enforcement and forget about the magnet that already exists, the inequities that have already been put in place because a whole bunch of people knew the borders were porous, because a whole bunch of people knew employers would hire them if they came here illegally which, incidentally, is against the law. But where are the prosecutors prosecuting that in the past? It hasn't been happening. So our system is broken. What we need to do, consistent with our values and history as a country that has welcomed and honored immigrants, is to deal with the current situation in a realistic, open, fairminded way that tries to find the common ground between us. I believe we can do that, but it is a problem we have to think about from both sides. I have spent some time in the last months, knowing this debate was going to take place, meeting with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and trying to understand how people are thinking about this. How does somebody who has come into the country, who has been here for 15 years, 20 years, who has raised their kids, whose kids have friends, who has gone to the local school, who is going to college now, how do they see this? How do we all see this? We have 11 million, approximately, undocumented immigrants living and working in the United States. The Nation's employers want these people, evidently, because they are hiring them. It is against the law to hire them, but they are hiring them. How many Americans have gone down to a street corner and hired somebody or had somebody mow the lawn or somebody come over to the house to clean out the garage or do something and paid them cash? The fact is, there are low-skilled, low-wage jobs that a whole bunch of Americans don't want to necessarily fill. I know during the 1990s, we reached an unemployment level of about 2 percent plus in Massachusetts. I believe it was around 4 percent as a nation, effectively full employment in the United States. Still there were a whole bunch of low-wage jobs people didn't want to do. There simply aren't enough visas for the people who want to come in to do those jobs and for the jobs that people want to have done to fill. And with the lure of higher paying jobs than in their home countries, workers come in to fill them. That is a centuries-old reality, not just here but in countries all around the world. The system that employers are supposed to use to verify the legal status of employees is fundamentally weak. It is subject to exploitation by everybody. The workers can exploit it by getting false documents, and the employers can exploit it by ignoring documents that they know are false or by avoiding the requirement to comply with the law. Our challenge here in the Senate is not to demagog this issue. It is not to say: Boy, if we just enforced the border, that is the whole deal. It is not the whole deal. Everybody who has thought about this issue in any serious way knows that is not the whole deal. If we are going to deal with 11 million undocumented workers who are currently living in the shadows in America and be fair to our history and our values, we have to create a comprehensive reform program. Some people on the other side of the aisle suggest all we have to do is shut down the border and that is it, just shut the border. They believe the approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants currently living and working in America are going to return home. Are they serious? People who have a job, paid their dues, paid their taxes, didn't get in trouble, kids are in high school about to graduate or in college, they are going to pack up and go home? Back to what? For those who won't leave voluntarily, these people believe we are going to have all our police officers and everybody go out and find them and round them up and deport them. How would you do that? How do you find 11 million people who are living in the shadows? How are you going to compel them to leave? What are you going to say to their children and grandchildren and the businesses and the communities that depend on them? What is the image going to be around the world? You can see the cartoons as the United States is busy rounding up these folks, herding them into buses, sending them back. George Will summed this up pretty well in his column last week. He wrote: Of the nation's illegal immigrants--estimated to be at least 11 million, a cohort larger than the combined populations of 12 States--60 percent have been here at least five years. Most have roots in their communities. Their children born here are U.S. citizens. Those children, because they were born in the United States, are U.S. citizens; that is what our Constitution says. So are we going to separate parents and grandparents from American citizen children? We are not going to take the draconian police measures necessary to deport 11 million people. They would fill 200,000 buses in a caravan stretching bumper-to-bumper from San Diego to Alaska--where, by the way, 26,000 Latinos live. And there are no plausible incentives to get 11 million to board the buses. That is what George Will said. Mr. President, offering up border enforcement as a panacea is a great political talking point. You can go out, and there are places where people will stomp their feet and clap their hands and say: Isn't that true? But it is not a real strategy, it is not a way to fix our broken immigration system. I am also troubled by the anti-immigrant statements made during this debate, which expose a limited understanding of the role of immigrants and immigrant workers and the role that they play in the fabric of our economy and our society and our communities. Most troubling is, I think, that these statements are statements that are made to try to divide people. For example, arguing against the need for immigrant labor, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher said: Let the prisoners pick the fruits. We can do it without bringing in millions of foreigners. According to Congressman Bob Beauprez: If we continue down this path that the Senate has established, . . . we will have created the biggest magnet ever. It would be like a dinner bell, ``come one, come all.'' Congressman Steve King says that anyone who supports a guest worker proposal should be ``branded with a scarlet letter A,'' for ``amnesty.'' Congressman Tom Tancredo wants to turn America into a gated community, warning people that among the people crossing our borders are ``people coming to kill me and you and your children.'' He laments the ``cult of multiculturalism'' and worries that America is becoming a ``Tower of Babel.'' I would like Tom Tancredo to go over to Iraq, where there are 70,000 legal immigrants serving this country, and ask them how they feel about a ``Tower of Babel'' and about the values of this country. These statements do not reflect the contribution that immigrants have made to our country over centuries. They don't reflect the contributions that they make today. Most of us in this country--almost all of us in this country descend from immigrants. That is who we are. I am privileged to be married to an immigrant, who didn't become an American citizen until, I think, she was 24 or 25 years old. I know how loyal people can become to a country that welcomes them and gives them the ability to fulfill the American dream. The vast majority of the American people understand the value that immigrants provide to our country. They understand that enforcement alone is not going to work, and they have taken to the streets to make their voices heard. Half a million people demonstrated in Los Angeles to protest an enforcement-only approach to immigration reform, far surpassing the number of people who protested the Vietnam war. More than 10,000 people participated in the ``Day Without Latinos'' rally in Milwaukee, WI, leaving their jobs and marching through downtown. Similar walkouts occurred in other parts of the country with students and laborers protesting enforcement-only immigration proposals such as the House bill. Churches and humanitarian organizations have become actively involved in the fight for comprehensive immigration reform. In fact, yesterday I spoke with Hispanic evangelical leaders from across the country about their concerns regarding the immigration crisis in our country. Cardinal Roger Mahoney, the archbishop of Los Angeles, has spearheaded an effort by the Roman Catholic Church to defy the House bill that criminalizes immigrants and the organizations that help those immigrants. You heard my colleague, Senator Kennedy, talk about what would happen if somebody reaches out to the poor, the needy, the sick, which is a fundamental tenet of any religion. And this bill in the House wants to criminalize that. The people are making their voices heard. They understand what is at stake in this debate. They understand the role that immigrants play in this country, and they are fighting to ensure that we end up with a fair humanitarian, realistic solution. Now, while some people look at enforcement only--incidentally, let me say that during the election of 2004, I spoke up as forcefully as I could in New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and lots of places where there are lots of immigrants. I consistently said that you have to have comprehensive reform. I didn't just talk about earned legalization or about guest workers; I talked about the need to crack down on businesses that are illegally hiring people. We need to have a simple and honest way for people to know who is applying for work. This is common sense, particularly in a post-9/11 world, where it is important for American security to know who is coming into our country. So we need to do that. You cannot look at enforcement-only but rather the comprehensive bill like that which is being considered on the floor of the Senate. I am encouraged by what the Judiciary Committee, in a bipartisan bill, did, which is now a full substitute to Senator Frist's bill, and that is the bill offered by Senator Specter. As Senator Kennedy and others have said, the Specter amendment has the four cornerstones of real immigration reform. You cannot do it without all four. No. 1, you have to have a strengthening of our border enforcement. That means using all of the latest technology to build a virtual fence--use the sensors that we have available in the military, use the cameras and technology, and use more human presence to add to the Border Patrol that is currently there; make sure enough vehicles are there, which is an amendment I intend to offer if we get into the substantive part of the debate. It has been much neglected through the years by all in strengthening the border. Second, regulate visas in order to meet the work flow needs. And you have to do it in a more effective way than we have in the past. Third, you have to provide a path for legalization for people who have been here for a long period of time, played by the rules, raised their families, and have children who are American citizens. We need to find a way to do that so that it is not, as some of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle say, opening the door and making a fool of the law. I am not for doing that. The law has to mean something. Indeed, in this bill, from 2004 forward, there is no eligibility for people to have earned legalization. It shuts the door after 2004. It brings down a wall but in a comprehensive way that has a starting point that says: OK, we acknowledge that for a long period of time we didn't have a realistic system, we were not able to stop people from coming in. What is the fairest way to deal with this problem, to send notice in the future that this is a new get-tough policy in the United States and a policy that will be backed up by adequate border security, by a realistic visa program that commands respect of people, and by a legitimate effort to bring people out of the shadows, which also commands the respect of people everywhere. Finally, we need to help employers enforce our laws. You have to have a way for the employer not to be turned into a police officer but to easily, and with certainty, be able to determine whether the documents they are looking at are real and whether the person they are looking at, presenting the documents, is the person that it purports to be. Mr. President, the Specter amendment is tough on border security. It is important because this debate has gone on as if there is a bill out there that is for border security--the Frist bill and the House bill-- and this other bill that somehow is not. That is not accurate. The Specter amendment is tough on enforcement and border security. Almost every provision of the other bill--the Frist bill--is in there. And it is unfair to assume that it doesn't have strong enforcement provisions. The Specter substitute doubles the size of the Border Patrol by adding 12,000 new agents over the next 5 years. It doubles interior enforcement by adding 5,000 investigators over the next 5 years. It adds new technology at the border to create the virtual fence that I talked about. It expands the exit and the entry system at all land and airports. It mandates a new land and water surveillance plan, and it increases the criminal penalties for violating our immigration laws. That is a tough bill with tough enforcement. It also addresses the reason that undocumented workers come to this country. They come to this country looking for jobs, and the demand for labor in our country is one of the things that pulls them here. So workers cross the border because we don't have enough visas to be able to permit people to cross legally, so they come illegally. Guess what. They get a job when they get here. That is illegal. One of the key elements to stopping the illegal flow of workers across the border is to increase the number of visas for people to come legally and also to have an adequate ability for the employer to have no excuse for not knowing the legality of the people who work with them. There should be a no-fault system here, where there is an automatic presumption of the employer's ability to enforce. The temporary worker program that is created by the Specter substitute, in my judgment, will help to regularize the flow of immigrant workers in and out of this country. I understand some people fear allowing temporary workers into the United States. They think it will hurt American workers and depress their wages. Again, that is a phony ``bogeyman.'' That is a red herring in this debate. Either people have not read the temporary worker program or they chose to allow themselves to be completely misled by it. The temporary program has labor protections and it has market wage requirements. The worker has to receive at least the same wage as someone similarly situated or at the prevailing wage level for that job, whichever is greater. So there is a wage enforcement mechanism that will not allow that depression. The workers will receive a 3-year visa, reviewable for 3 years, and have the ability to curb employer abuse by switching jobs. And in addition, after working 4 years, they can petition for a green card. So the temporary worker program meets the labor needs of employers while at the same time remaining flexible enough to accommodate changes in the marketplace. Equally important is reducing the backlog of people who are waiting for visas. Mr. President, 260,000 new family visas and 150,000 new employment visas will be added each year. Thirty percent of the employment visa pool will be reserved for essential workers. And perhaps most importantly, those currently waiting for visas will be processed before any of the current undocumented workers. This is critical. When people talk about this somehow being an amnesty, they are completely ignoring the 10 steps you have to go through--the last of which is the most important of all--that you go to the end of the line. You don't somehow get a free pass card that automatically puts you in; you go to the end of the line. So the numbers of documented people are already there ahead of those who are undocumented; and if you are coming in undocumented, you not only have to learn English, have a health exam, and have a security background check, and you not only have to be legitimately employed and all these things, but you also go to the end of the line. That is not an amnesty. The Judiciary Committee bill also provides a realistic way to deal with the 11 million undocumented workers who are already here. Senator Kennedy went through those 10 different steps. I will not repeat them now, except to emphasize the last point I made about the back of the line. I think those are pretty onerous burdens. They are tough burdens. They require all back taxes to be paid--tough burdens. It is not forgive and forget. It is meet a standard. It is live up to a standard. The final piece of the immigration reform puzzle is how do we create a workable employer verification system. We don't want to, but we need to, unfortunately, rely on employers to be part of the system. We don't want to turn them into immigration bureaucrats. We don't want to turn them into police officers, but it is inevitable if we are going to have a legitimate comprehensive system that when somebody presents credentials to an employer, the employer can't cheat, the employer can't look for a way around it. The employer has to be part of this system of the values of America that say there are people waiting in line, there are people going through the visa system. We are spending money on the border. We need you to be part of this system. It is going to take an educational effort by chambers of commerce and small business associations and other efforts around the country so that there is an ethic in America that is not willing to cheat. And if that ethic was put in place, we would do more to stop illegal immigration than any other single item because people won't be able to find the work. I personally think it is the single most important part, together with the Border Patrol component itself, of having a comprehensive immigration program. Currently, however, employers don't have a reliable system for checking the validity of Social Security numbers, and we know how many Social Security numbers have been stolen. We have a problem for all Americans with the theft of Social Security numbers. So we need to deal with that problem even as we deal with this question of verification of employees. The Specter substitute creates a system that will enable employers to quickly and accurately verify a potential employee's legal status. The last immigration reform we passed in 1986 was intended to address the root causes of illegal workers coming across to the United States, but it failed to draw all the illegal workers out of the shadows, and that really has helped lay the groundwork to people's cynicism and skepticism, which I understand, about today's system. The reason we are in the crisis we are in today is because we have never really been comprehensive. That is the problem. I believe the Specter substitute amendment that the Judiciary Committee worked so hard to create and pass in a bipartisan fashion does not make the same mistake that was made in 1986. There is one other aspect of the bill I would like to mention before yielding the floor. I have supported for many years the DREAM Act. The DREAM Act will enable young people who have spent most of their lives in the United States, who believe in our country and have stayed out of trouble, to have a chance to get a crack at higher education, which is essential. It gives incredibly bright and capable young people a real chance at success, and it gives our country well-educated, hard-working citizens. I think including the DREAM Act in comprehensive immigration reform makes sense, and I am pleased the Judiciary Committee, led by the efforts of Senator Durbin, included it. There are a number of amendments--I am not going to go into all of them now--but there are a number of amendments on Border Patrol, making sure the Border Patrol agents have sufficient tools, GPS, other items. Also, I want to eliminate the ability of the administration to have a completely unreviewable authority to make the full decision on an individual's life. The Secretary of Homeland Security, the Attorney General, and consular officials who currently have the sole and final authority really will have an undue impact on detention, deportation, citizenship determinations, and other issues. We need to somehow not have concentrated power in so few hands. In the end, the Specter bill is a comprehensive bill. It has the chance of bipartisan support. I think it is a courageous bill. I congratulate the Chair and the members of the committee who fought so hard to come up with something under difficult circumstances, and I hope we are going to be able to get a chance to fix that bill and amend that bill appropriately on the floor. I hope that will be the vehicle the Senate proudly embraces as a reflection of the values of our country and the proper amount of respect for the history we have traveled. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to introduce the Martin Luther King, Jr., Record Collections Act. This act will ensure the expeditious disclosure and preservation of records relevant to Dr. King's life and death. Fully releasing these records--many of which are not subject to disclosure until 2038--will shed significant light on a turning point in American history. My friend, Representative John Lewis, explained its necessity quite eloquently: I, too, was the subject of unwarranted FBI surveillance during the Civil Rights Movement. Because we do not know this part of our history, it is clear that we are beginning to repeat it. Recently, we became aware of the administration's domestic spying program that has targeted peace groups that are carrying on the nonviolent action of Dr. King. It is time that we know our history, and passage of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Records Act will take us one step closer to uncovering that history. Judge Joseph Brown, the last presiding judge in James Earl Ray's post-conviction relief proceedings, also supports this legislation. He believes that it is important to: . . . fully release the still classified historical record surrounding the life and death of the late Dr. King. In light of the disturbing records and documents that came to light in James Earl Ray's petition before me and in consideration of the recent furor over the power and authority granted to certain officials under the guise of the Homeland Security Act, it might prove most illuminating to review the historical record relative to the exercise of purportedly similar power and authority by the U.S. officials 40 years ago. The American public, the citizens of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave deserve this access to the historic record surrounding the life and death of Dr. King. Our legislation will create a Martin Luther King Records Collection at the National Archives. This will include all records--public and private--related to the life and death of Dr. King, including any investigations or inquiries by Federal, State, or local agencies. The records will be organized in a central directory to allow the public to access them online from anywhere in the world. The documents will be overseen by a review board consisting of at least one professional historian, one attorney, one researcher, and one representative of the civil rights community. The MLK Records Review Board, a five-member independent agency, will be responsible for facilitating the review and transmission of all related records to the Archivist for public disclosure. Members will be nominated by the President and approved with the advice and consent of the Senate. It will have the power to direct government offices to locate and organize related records and transmit them for review or release. It will also have the power to investigate the facts surrounding the transmission or possession of records, take testimony of individuals in order to fulfill their responsibilities, request the Attorney General to subpoena private persons or government employees to compel testimony or records and require agencies to account in writing for any previous or current destruction of related records. In addition, the Board can request that the Attorney General petition any court in the U.S. or abroad to release any sealed information or physical evidence relevant to the life or death of Dr. King, and to subpoena such evidence if it is no longer in the possession of the government. The MLK Records Review Board will also be required to provide annual reports to Congress, the President, the Archivist, and all government agencies whose records have been reviewed, and to the public. The Board must terminate its work no later than 5 years from the passage of the Act unless it votes to extend for an additional 2- year term. The reason for having such a Board is to ensure that someone is responsible for finding all relevant records and that the records do not disclose any sensitive information. It is particularly important to have a Board like this given recent revelations by the New York Times that the government has begun removing thousands of declassified documents on a wide range of historical subjects from public access at the National Archives. There has perhaps never been a more urgent time to bring the records on Dr. King into the light of day. According to the National Archives, about 9,500 records totaling more than 55,000 pages have been withdrawn from the public shelves and reclassified since 1999. We need to ensure that the records relating to the life and death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., do not suffer the same fate. They are too important to us at this point in American history. Dr. King challenged the conscience of my generation, and his words and his legacy continue to move generations to action today. His love and faith is alive in the millions of Americans who volunteer each day in soup kitchens or in schools, and those who refused to ignore the suffering of thousands they'd never met when Hurricane Katrina destroyed lives and communities. His vision and his passion are alive in churches and on campuses when millions stand up against the injustice of discrimination or the indifference that leaves too many behind. The best way to honor the memory of Dr. King is to finish his work at home and around the world. And the first step to furthering his legacy is to know the full body of it. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this very important effort: to preserve and learn from records relating to the life and death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s assassination, I am pleased to join with my colleague in the House, Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney to introduce the Martin Luther King, Jr., Record Collections Act. This act will ensure the expeditious disclosure and preservation of records relevant to Dr. King's life and death. Fully releasing these records--many of which are not subject to disclosure until 2038--will shed significant light on a turning point in American history. My friend, Representative John Lewis, explained its necessity quite eloquently: I, too, was the subject of unwarranted FBI surveillance during the Civil Rights Movement. Because we do not know this part of our history, it is clear that we are beginning to repeat it. Recently, we became aware of the administration's domestic spying program that has targeted peace groups that are carrying on the nonviolent action of Dr. King. It is time that we know our history, and passage of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. Records Act will take us one step closer to uncovering that history. Judge Joseph Brown, the last presiding judge in James Earl Ray's post-conviction relief proceedings, also supports this legislation. He believes that it is important to: . . . fully release the still classified historical record surrounding the life and death of the late Dr. King. In light of the disturbing records and documents that came to light in James Earl Ray's petition before me and in consideration of the recent furor over the power and authority granted to certain officials under the guise of the Homeland Security Act, it might prove most illuminating to review the historical record relative to the exercise of purportedly similar power and authority by the U.S. officials 40 years ago. The American public, the citizens of the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave deserve this access to the historic record surrounding the life and death of Dr. King. Our legislation will create a Martin Luther King Records Collection at the National Archives. This will include all records--public and private--related to the life and death of Dr. King, including any investigations or inquiries by Federal, State, or local agencies. The records will be organized in a central directory to allow the public to access them online from anywhere in the world. The documents will be overseen by a review board consisting of at least one professional historian, one attorney, one researcher, and one representative of the civil rights community. The MLK Records Review Board, a five-member independent agency, will be responsible for facilitating the review and transmission of all related records to the Archivist for public disclosure. Members will be nominated by the President and approved with the advice and consent of the Senate. It will have the power to direct government offices to locate and organize related records and transmit them for review or release. It will also have the power to investigate the facts surrounding the transmission or possession of records, take testimony of individuals in order to fulfill their responsibilities, request the Attorney General to subpoena private persons or government employees to compel testimony or records and require agencies to account in writing for any previous or current destruction of related records. In addition, the Board can request that the Attorney General petition any court in the U.S. or abroad to release any sealed information or physical evidence relevant to the life or death of Dr. King, and to subpoena such evidence if it is no longer in the possession of the government. The MLK Records Review Board will also be required to provide annual reports to Congress, the President, the Archivist, and all government agencies whose records have been reviewed, and to the public. The Board must terminate its work no later than 5 years from the passage of the Act unless it votes to extend for an additional 2- year term. The reason for having such a Board is to ensure that someone is responsible for finding all relevant records and that the records do not disclose any sensitive information. It is particularly important to have a Board like this given recent revelations by the New York Times that the government has begun removing thousands of declassified documents on a wide range of historical subjects from public access at the National Archives. There has perhaps never been a more urgent time to bring the records on Dr. King into the light of day. According to the National Archives, about 9,500 records totaling more than 55,000 pages have been withdrawn from the public shelves and reclassified since 1999. We need to ensure that the records relating to the life and death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., do not suffer the same fate. They are too important to us at this point in American history. Dr. King challenged the conscience of my generation, and his words and his legacy continue to move generations to action today. His love and faith is alive in the millions of Americans who volunteer each day in soup kitchens or in schools, and those who refused to ignore the suffering of thousands they'd never met when Hurricane Katrina destroyed lives and communities. His vision and his passion are alive in churches and on campuses when millions stand up against the injustice of discrimination or the indifference that leaves too many behind. The best way to honor the memory of Dr. King is to finish his work at home and around the world. And the first step to furthering his legacy is to know the full body of it. I hope that my colleagues will join me in this very important effort: to preserve and learn from records relating to the life and death of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to recognize and celebrate the life of a great American, a Boston institution, and a personal friend. Earlier this month the legendary restaurateur Joe Tecce passed away, and with his death at age 94 a colorful chapter of Boston's history came to a close. Joe's journey in the hospitality business started with a pushcart selling fruit on the North End's Salem Street at age 14, and due to his father's death years earlier, that job would constitute much of the family income. His trademark perseverance and business sense allowed him to open the Bella Napoli pizzeria in 1947. This 30 seat restaurant would host the first of countless guests, from all walks of life and from all over the world, who would make an evening special by sitting at one of Joe's coveted tables. Once formally established on North Washington Street, Joe Tecce's Ristorante, or what regulars simply called ``Tecce's'', became a favorite of Bostonians, tourists from around the world, and celebrities of every stripe for more than 40 years. His reputation grew as his business and family did, and for Joe the two were almost inseparable. In addition to his traditional culinary skills, Joe became a host of such generosity and grace that he became an ambassador for the city itself. Standing at the door of Tecce's, often with his trademark wide- brimmed felt hat, Joe would greet everyone from Elizabeth Taylor and Nancy Reagan, to Frank Sinatra and Al Pacino, as well as luminaries from the worlds of sports such as Bobby Orr, Reggie Jackson and Larry Bird. His love of boxing not only attracted Rocky Marciano and Marvin Hagler to visit, it actually resulted in Joe being named to the Boxing Commission by then-Governor Ed King. To walk into Tecce's was to walk into his home, and as you took your seat you could look around and see generations of Joe's family, sons and cousins, pushing forward the legacy he started with his fruit cart over 60 years earlier. For me and my family, no trip to the Boston Garden for a Celtics or Bruins game would be complete without starting the evening at Tecce's, and over the many years I knew Joe it became customary for my friends to gather there before a political event or a night at the theater. Joe Tecce loved his family, his neighbors, and the North End and its traditions. But it was with his restaurant that he wove together all three and throughout the course of his career they became one. His legacy of generosity and hospitality leaves the city of Boston a better place, and it is with a heavy heart that I join his countless friends and beloved family in honoring his time with us.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first of all, I thank the Senator from Louisiana. She has been terrific to work with on this issue, but, more important, she is absolutely tenacious with respect to the recovery issues in her State. I think she has offered tremendous leadership in the Senate on a constant basis. On almost every bill that comes through, she has fought to find a way to assist with the recovery. It has been a pleasure to work with her. I know she has to go to another meeting. I am pleased to join with her in introducing this legislation today. Senator Landrieu has tried to spread the word that New Orleans has plenty to offer, that people should not be scared away by negative press reports but instead be looking for opportunities to help rebuild one of our greatest cities. According to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, more than 125,000 small and medium sized businesses were disrupted or destroyed by the hurricanes. It's been seven months since the Gulf was hit by the hurricanes, and it is time to take a look at the long-term needs of businesses in the region if we are going to truly foster an economic recovery. It is well known, the SBA's disaster loan program has done an abysmal job of getting out capital to businesses and homeowners over the past seven months, still with almost 80,000 applications to be processed out of 400,000 applications submitted. To help clear out the backlog, this bill enlists the agency's private-sector lending partners to help process loans. They are experienced SBA lenders, and in exchange for their expertise, SBA would pay them a fee to process loans. This is much faster than building a separate infrastructure of lenders, losing time to train them, when the experience and infrastructure already exists. Along with the American Bankers Associations, we urged the SBA back in November to enlist the agency's private-sector lending partners to help process loans. SBA refused, saying they had a better idea. That idea failed. With this bill, SBA can increase processing, get small businesses their loans faster, and local lenders can participate in the recovery of their communities. We also identified a need for export assistance. There is an interesting phenomenon occurring right now as a result of Katrina. Companies from around the globe, having witnessed the tragedy of New Orleans, are trying to reach out to businesses along the Gulf Coast. For companies that had already established relationships overseas, this has meant big bucks. Many smaller businesses, however, don't have those relationships and are struggling to take advantage of these new international opportunities. The U.S. Export Assistance Centers, or USEACs, are ready and willing to help, and they are a tremendous resource for businesses looking to branch into foreign markets. But the problem is that the Small Business administration doesn't have an employee in the New Orleans USEAC to help direct businesses to the financing programs that they need. Senator Landrieu and I recognize that this is because the SBA's international trade resources are stretched too thinly, so we are authorizing extra funds for the SBA to use in hiring an employee for the New Orleans USEAC. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina hit, Small Business Development Centers across the country decided to devote all the funds in the portability grant program, which is designed to help communities recover after suffering significant job losses, to helping the Gulf Coast SBDCs. Not only did the SBDC community sacrifice money to help their colleagues in the Gulf, they tried to volunteer employees and other resources. Unfortunately, the good intentions of the SBDC network were stopped by legal technicalities. Limitations on the amount of money a State could get for a portability grant and restrictions on SBDC employees working outside of their State hampered recovery efforts. Senator Landrieu and I were disturbed to hear of these problems, and with our legislation today we will correct these problems so that bureaucracy isn't preventing the Gulf Coast recovery. This bill also focuses on contracting opportunities for small businesses. The full participation of this Nation's small businesses, particularly those in and around the affected region, in the rebuilding effort is essential to the long-term success of the region's economy. New Orleans, in particular, was a city built on a foundation of small business and they will be the driving force behind its rebuilding. Unfortunately, not enough is being done to ensure this participation. Just last week, I sent a letter to FEMA about their failure to award approximately $1.5 billion in relief, recovery, and rebuilding contracts to small businesses. They told Senator Landrieu and me, and the other members of the Small Business Committee in November that they would award those contracts by February 1. We were disappointed that it would be another four months to get those funds to small businesses that desperately needed the work, but we were even more appalled when the deadline came and went, with no action from FEMA. Thus, this legislation has a number of provisions to help small businesses in the disaster areas compete for Federal contracts in the short term and in any future disaster recovery effort. This bill would make the declared disaster areas an Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone). This would give a preference to small businesses in the disaster zone when they bid on Federal contracts. To help jumpstart the local economies affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and Wilma, the bill requires the Federal Government to award 30 percent of prime contracts and 40 percent of subcontract dollars spent on disaster relief, recovery or reconstruction in the four affected States to be awarded to small businesses. Small businesses performing work in the area are more likely to turn over Federal dollars in the local economy, reinvigorating the local economy. The provision also includes a requirement of a weekly small business utilization report from the Gulf Coast region. The bill includes a change to the Stafford Act, requiring that 10 percent of immediate disaster recovery contracts, such as debris removal, distribution of supplies, and reconstruction are awarded to firms located in or near an area designated as a federal disaster area by the President. This will put more local people back to work and help a region's economic recovery after a disaster. This legislation will increase access for small businesses seeking contracting opportunities but limited by their ability to get bonded. Expanding access to bonding will increase small business participation, but will also protect the Federal Government from significant cost overruns and lack of performance in a contract. Mr. President, 43 percent of businesses that close following a disaster never reopen, and an additional 29 percent of businesses close down permanently within two years of a natural disaster. It's been seven months, but we still have a chance to make a difference and mitigate bankruptcies and foster the startup and growth of new small businesses to rebuild the Gulf region. I hope that my colleagues and the administration will give this bill consideration and not repeat the past months of obstruction that have hurt local small businesses and homeowners. It is inexcusable that the bipartisan bill we put forward with Senators Snowe and Vitter in September has been stalled. I thank my colleague Senator Landrieu for her leadership and look forward to traveling with her soon to Louisiana to visit with businesses and families that still need our help.