John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Parliamentary inquiry?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the manufacturing deduction provided by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 does not include income from goods produced in any possession of the United States. Today along with Senators Clinton and Schumer, I am introducing legislation which would allow the manufacturing deduction to include income attributable to domestic production in possessions of the United States. This legislation would make the manufacturing deduction available only for the possession income of U.S. residents. During the Senate Finance markup of the manufacturing deduction, I offered an amendment that would extend this deduction to income from goods produced in the possessions of the United States. The amendment was agreed to by the Finance Committee, but unfortunately the provision was not included in the conference agreement. I do not know why the Republican chaired conference committee removed this provision so important to the people of Puerto Rico and elsewhere. Most United States businesses that operate in the possessions use the possessions tax credit or the Puerto Rican economic activities credits. In 1996, Congress passed the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 which included a provision that phased-out the tax credits and completely repeals them beginning in 2006. The legislation that I am introducing today would help the businesses that are no longer able to benefit from these credits. More importantly, this legislation provides an equitable solution. There is no reason why companies operating in the possessions should not receive the same manufacturing deduction as companies operating in the mainland United States, Alaska, or Hawaii.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Snowe, the chair of our committee, and our colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Vitter, to introduce a bill to help small businesses that have been damaged, physically and economically, by one or both of the hurricanes that have destroyed the gulf region over the past four or five weeks. Our colleagues should feel very comfortable voting for this bill. The need is undeniable, based not only on what we see on television every day and read in the papers but also based on the testimony of small businesses and governors at hearings held in the Senate, in our committee last week, and this week before the Finance Committee. Further, 96 Senators voted for very similar legislation 2 weeks ago. This bill is very similar to the amendment (S.A. 1695) that Senator Landrieu and I offered to the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Science, and that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0 on September 15 as part of the compromise amendment (S.A. 1717) that I put forth with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter. We offered those amendments to the appropriations bill because relief for small businesses had not been provided for in the two emergency supplementals. Two bills, worth some $63 billion, and nothing designated for small businesses. It is through the Small Business Administration that disaster loan assistance is available, not just for businesses but for homeowners and renters, and it is through the Small Business Administration that the Federal Government provides the full complement of assistance to the small businesses in our Nation. The SBA is indispensable to the recovery of the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. If the administration is not going to provide small business relief in the emergency spending bills it sends to Congress, this is absolutely appropriate. We have got to get into law, and to fund, relief for small businesses before Senators go home for a week break in October. These folks have waited too long. We have got to get people back to work. Since Hurricane Katrina hit, the gulf has had the extreme misfortune of being hit by Hurricane Rita. And this bill reflects the damage caused by going a bit further to take care of those small businesses, too. It also incorporates provisions requested by the administration. For example, at the request of the administration, the bill authorizes the Small Business Administration to make economic injury disaster loans nationwide to any small business directly and adversely impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. The bill limits eligibility of economic injury disaster loans to those small businesses suffering economic losses because of the spikes in gasoline and natural gas and heating oil related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That is consistent with all other provisions in this bill. We also increased the amount of funding for grants to the States from $400 million to $450 million, to reflect the increased damage and delays in recovery caused by Hurricane Rita. We also repeal some contracting provisions enacted as part of the second supplemental that were anti-small business and would have resulted in millions of contracting dollars lost for small businesses that should be getting Federal contracts to rebuild the area. The small businesses don't just need loans; they need work to get revenue flowing again and to hire again, creating local jobs. Mr. President, I extend great thanks to my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter for their work on this bill. I think we have demonstrated to a weary public that we can work together, and I hope that our colleagues in the Senate and in the House and the President will join us and vote to make this law and to fund it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join with Senator Snowe, the chair of our committee, and our colleagues, Senators Landrieu and Vitter, to introduce a bill to help small businesses that have been damaged, physically and economically, by one or both of the hurricanes that have destroyed the gulf region over the past four or five weeks. Our colleagues should feel very comfortable voting for this bill. The need is undeniable, based not only on what we see on television every day and read in the papers but also based on the testimony of small businesses and governors at hearings held in the Senate, in our committee last week, and this week before the Finance Committee. Further, 96 Senators voted for very similar legislation 2 weeks ago. This bill is very similar to the amendment (S.A. 1695) that Senator Landrieu and I offered to the fiscal year 2006 appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and Science, and that passed the Senate by a vote of 96 to 0 on September 15 as part of the compromise amendment (S.A. 1717) that I put forth with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter. We offered those amendments to the appropriations bill because relief for small businesses had not been provided for in the two emergency supplementals. Two bills, worth some $63 billion, and nothing designated for small businesses. It is through the Small Business Administration that disaster loan assistance is available, not just for businesses but for homeowners and renters, and it is through the Small Business Administration that the Federal Government provides the full complement of assistance to the small businesses in our Nation. The SBA is indispensable to the recovery of the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. If the administration is not going to provide small business relief in the emergency spending bills it sends to Congress, this is absolutely appropriate. We have got to get into law, and to fund, relief for small businesses before Senators go home for a week break in October. These folks have waited too long. We have got to get people back to work. Since Hurricane Katrina hit, the gulf has had the extreme misfortune of being hit by Hurricane Rita. And this bill reflects the damage caused by going a bit further to take care of those small businesses, too. It also incorporates provisions requested by the administration. For example, at the request of the administration, the bill authorizes the Small Business Administration to make economic injury disaster loans nationwide to any small business directly and adversely impacted by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita. The bill limits eligibility of economic injury disaster loans to those small businesses suffering economic losses because of the spikes in gasoline and natural gas and heating oil related to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. That is consistent with all other provisions in this bill. We also increased the amount of funding for grants to the States from $400 million to $450 million, to reflect the increased damage and delays in recovery caused by Hurricane Rita. We also repeal some contracting provisions enacted as part of the second supplemental that were anti-small business and would have resulted in millions of contracting dollars lost for small businesses that should be getting Federal contracts to rebuild the area. The small businesses don't just need loans; they need work to get revenue flowing again and to hire again, creating local jobs. Mr. President, I extend great thanks to my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter for their work on this bill. I think we have demonstrated to a weary public that we can work together, and I hope that our colleagues in the Senate and in the House and the President will join us and vote to make this law and to fund it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am honored to recognize three outstanding Massachusetts communities, each of which has been chosen by America's Promise as one of the ``100 Best Communities for Young People'' in this Nation. The communities of Barnstable County, Brockton, and Cambridge, have demonstrated outstanding civic leadership for our children. Community leaders, businesses, teachers and Government officials work together in these communities to give their children both the tools and the opportunities they need to succeed. I am very proud that such exemplary communities can be found in my home State. Barnstable has an impressive record of civic involvement. Not only are community leaders active in the lives of their youth, but they encourage their children to participate in community activities. Over 40 percent of the households in Barnstable have young people participating in community service, and this is, in large part, a reflection of the extensive programs in area high schools such as Junior State of America, Mentoring, Peer Leaders, and National Honor Society. In the Barnstable middle school communities, initiatives such as Schools for Success, which works with underachieving youth in the Barnstable Middle School to improve academic achievement and social skills, have evolved and flourished. The community involvement extends outside of the school systems as well with organizations such as Children's Cove, a program run by the Barnstable County district attorney's office, the State department of social service, and Cape Cod Health Care, together with other community partners to assist children who have experienced sexual abuse. In Brockton, successful community organizations work tirelessly to provide their children with every opportunity to learn, grow, and remain both physically and mentally healthy. The Brockton After Dark program organizes several different activities each weeknight at seven locations across the city, including basketball games, open swim time, tennis, soccer, performing arts, and open mike nights. By keeping vulnerable youth off the streets, the program contributed to a significant drop in crime. The Target Outreach initiative directs at- risk youth to positive alternatives offered by the Boys & Girls Clubs by recruiting children to club activities as a diversion to gang activities. In its first 2 years, the program far surpassed its enrollment goal. In 2004-2005, 179 members of the Brockton High School Key Club, a partner in Brockton's Promise, completed 3,800 hours of community service in Brockton. Together, the mayor, the district attorney and the chief of police have organized successful Kids Road Races, youth field trips to the local Brockton Rox baseball game, and much more. The city of Cambridge has also illustrated its dedication to improving the quality of life for its youth and their families. In 1997, Cambridge introduced the Agenda for Children, which consisted of more than 50 meetings with over 600 community members to bring the city's health, human services, schools, police, and library departments together with nonprofit providers and the Cambridge Community Foundation to help improve the quality of life for its youth. In addition, the Neighborhood Service Project provides youth with an opportunity to work with their peers targeting a variety of issues from teen pregnancy to multiculturalism. The Cambridge Prevention Coalition, partnering with other organizations, has developed a Peer Leadership Program which creates teen leaders mobilized around substance abuse issues. All in all, Cambridge has over 150 programs within the city limits attending to the needs and services of youth and their families. What I have given here is just a small sampling of the incredible programs occurring in the Commonwealth. I applaud these three cities on their recognition by America's Promise; encourage them to continue their great work and I hope other communities will follow their example.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today the Commerce Committee was scheduled to conduct an afternoon hearing regarding emergency communications. I regret that the hearing was postponed, and I hope and expect that the session will be quickly rescheduled. The events of September 11, 2001, uncovered a fundamental weakness in our communications system. We learned the hard way that in a time of crisis--when communication is most important--our first responders could not communicate at a basic level. Now, some 4 years later, Katrina has showed we have not fixed the problem. One of the biggest problem facing police, fire and first responders in the gulf coast was that the communications system was knocked off line. It was remarkable to watch as the television news crews had better luck communicating than our first responders. As the disaster unfolded, emergency officials repeatedly cited communications failures as a major obstacle to the disaster response effort. So despite the good work of the 9/11 Commission and the hard work of national and local officials, we find that the system is not hardened against terror or nature, and we remain dangerously vulnerable. Like all of my colleagues, I want a system that will work when we need it most. Frankly, there is not much good in an emergency communications system that doesn't work in emergencies. We must push ahead with the DTV transition so that new spectrum is made available and new technologies can come online. The Federal Government must commit the time, resources, training, technology, and leadership to create a national and truly interoperable communications system. It is a national job to ensure capability across regions, among rescues units, and up and down chain of command. I also believe we should deploy a redundant emergency communications system that, with a flick of switch, will operate during times of crisis when the main system is disabled. I have introduced a bill to address this immediate need. S. 1703 requires experts at the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications Commission evaluate the feasibility and cost of deploying an emergency communications system. The agencies will evaluate all reasonable options, including satellites, wireless and terrestrial-based systems. They will evaluate all available public and private resources that could provide such a system and submit a report to Congress detailing the findings. The DHS is then authorized to request appropriations to implement the system. Congress would then be in position to put in place whatever programs and funding are needed to get the job done. We have myriad day-to-day communications issues to address. I am mindful of these needs. As was pointed out by a witness in the Commerce Committee's morning hearing, we have major problems with ``operability'' within a particular agency that must be addressed before we can seriously tackle ``interoperability''--communicating across jurisdictions and among different agencies. However, we must also take steps to address an immediate crisis. We must ensure that we can respond in emergency situations with an eye toward building a reliable, redundant system for the long term. It is my hope that the Congress will consider this proposal, and other relevant proposals, before we recess for the year. I look forward to working with my colleagues in that regard.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I extend my deepest sympathies to the family and friends of Sandy Feldman at her untimely passing. We have lost a dedicated educator, a proud labor leader, a committed reformer, and someone my wife Teresa, and I were so proud to have as a friend in our lives. From her early days as a civil rights advocate, Sandy had an unshakeable sense of justice and fairness. Sandy did not just talk about helping teachers and their students--she actually did it. While her career spanned more than four decades, Sandy's commitment grew out of her early work in the civil rights movement. An advocate for civil rights and social justice, she was an activist in the Freedom Rides and the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. It was her firsthand knowledge of the power of an excellent teacher that led Sandy to a lifetime of activism. Sandy understood the importance of quality public education and the wealth of opportunities it can unleash for every student, regardless of who they are or where they're from. ``Created my future,'' that is what Sandy always said about growing up in Brooklyn and the public schools and libraries she spent her childhood in. Sandy's commitment to education was fueled by her childhood experiences and her dedication to bettering the lives of students and teachers. Beginning as a second grade teacher, Sandy quickly became a union activist when she led the teachers at her elementary school to organize. In 1986, Sandy became president of AFT's largest affiliate, New York City's United Federation of Teachers, UFT. During her years as UFT president and then since 1997 when she became president of the AFT, Sandy earned the respect of Presidents, of her colleagues, and of many of us in Congress. Calling early childhood education ``getting it right from the start,'' Sandy consistently called for greater investment in public education and a greater emphasis on high standards and increased accountability. Sandy's focus on early childhood education led her to introduce a program that would provide extended learning opportunities for disadvantaged students before and after the normal kindergarten school year. Within a few years, Sandy's program, Kindergarten-Plus, had been introduced as Federal legislation, passed or considered in several State legislatures, and passed into law in at least one State. My hope is that her tragic passing after a courageous battle with cancer will inspire all of us to do just what Sandy fought her entire life for--to make sure we are getting it right from the start and to stand by our children and our teachers. Sandy was an amazing American. I will miss her wisdom and her counsel very much. Our hearts go out to her husband Arthur and their family in this difficult time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we all know there are few things the Senate does which are as important as confirming a Supreme Court Justice, let alone the Chief Justice of the United States. We know that making the decision to support or oppose the nomination is both serious and complicated. We do not need to belabor those points. What we do need to talk about is what kind of process ought to occur, must occur, before a Senator can vote for or against a judicial nominee. What kind of information should be provided? What kind of discourse should we engage in? I met with Judge Roberts last week. I must say I enjoyed our conversation enormously. He is earnest, friendly, incredibly intelligent, and on a personal level I liked him. He has dedicated his life to the law, has given back to the legal community, and is certainly beyond question a superb lawyer. It may turn out he will be an outstanding Chief Justice. But I can't say with confidence that I know on a sufficient number of critical constitutional issues how he would rule or what his legal approach would be. I have read memos he wrote during the Reagan administration. I have reviewed the limited materials available from his time in the Solicitor General's office, where he worked under Ken Starr, and then in private practice at Hogan and Hartson. I have read the cases he participated in on the DC Circuit. I have listened to as much of the Judiciary Committee hearings as I could and I have reviewed transcripts where I couldn't. After all of that, I still find something essential is missing, something critical to our democratic process, something to ensure that we have an appropriate understanding of both our courts and our judges and their role in America. That understanding requires a genuine exchange of information and a real development of ideas, similar, in fact, to that which occurs in every argument at the Supreme Court itself or in the appellate courts. In appellate arguments, judges and Justices question lawyers, probing the depth of their legal arguments, testing their particular legal argument against the court's, or determining how it fits into their interpretation of the Constitution. They determine how interpretive principles apply and how they can reconcile apparently conflicting arguments. They make a judgment about the consequences of a potential outcome. The result in the end is a better understanding of the record before the court and, hopefully, a principled approach to deciding the case. Judge Roberts' Judiciary Committee hearings, notwithstanding the efforts of the Chair and many other of the Senators partaking in it, continue an increasingly sterile confirmation process: little genuine legal engagement between the questioners and the questioned, no real exchange of information, and too little substantive discussion. The confirmation exercise has now become little more than an empty shell. People are left guessing, hoping they understand the nominee's positions. The administration's steadfast refusal to disclose documents Judge Roberts worked on while serving as a Deputy Solicitor General in the first Bush administration has only compounded this problem. They claim disclosure of the documents will violate attorney-client privilege. I find that argument absurd. What client are they trying to protect? The Solicitor General represents the people of the United States of America. He is charged with arguing cases on behalf of all Americans. We were Judge Roberts' client when he worked in the Solicitor General's office. We have a right to know what he thought about the arguments he made on behalf of the American people. When John Roberts served as a Deputy Solicitor General under Ken Starr, he was intimately involved in critical decisions that office made, such as whether to intervene in a pending case; what legal arguments to advance in support of their position; whether to push for Supreme Court review; what the consequences of those arguments or that action would be; how those arguments fit into their theory of constitutional interpretation, whether those arguments reflect the views of the American people--all of these decisions are critical to an individual's thinking, to their approach to the law, to their understanding of public trust and public responsibility, to their understanding of the Constitution itself. All of these decisions helped to shape how Federal law was applied and how our Constitution was interpreted during that period of time. The fact is, there are bureaucrats, none of whom take an oath, as we do, to uphold the Constitution, who are aware of the contents of those particular memoranda. Yet we, the Senators, who are constitutionally obligated to give consent to this nominee, still do not know what positions Judge Roberts took, the arguments he made, or the thinking behind those arguments. For example, the Solicitor General's office decided to intervene in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic. That case was brought against abortion clinic protesters during the height of clinic violence and bombings. The plaintiffs argued that protesters were violating a Federal antidiscrimination law by blocking access to clinics and inciting violence. The Government intervened and argued that the Federal antidiscrimination law did not apply and, therefore, could not be used to stop the protesters. Judge Roberts briefed and argued the case for the Government. I believe the arguments advanced by the Government and the consequences of those arguments are troubling, but what we do not know is even more important: What role did Judge Roberts play in making them? What did he think about that approach? Did he consider the consequences on life, limb, and individual? Did he argue for a more narrow or broad interpretation of the law? At the same time, the Solicitor General's office intervened in a district court case in Wichita, KS, which raised the same issues that the Supreme Court in Bray was facing. The Government tried to get the district court to lift an injunction put in place to protect the safety of the clinic workers and patients. They argued that the plaintiffs could not win and, therefore, the injunction was improper. The district court denied the Government's request and chastised it for unnecessarily endangering people's lives. Those are the real consequences. We ought to know what kind of thinking, what were the legal approaches to the protection of those individuals' lives. The question still remains, what role did Judge Roberts have in making that decision? What was the legal reasoning that prompted it? Did he consider the real-life dangers that would result from that legal argument? The Solicitor General's office is never obligated to intervene in private litigation. There are thousands of cases pending every day like these questions. Why did the Government choose to intervene in those particular cases? And, even more importantly, what role did Judge Roberts have in making that decision? The administration's refusal to disclose those documents, in my judgment, creates a serious roadblock in the Senate's ability to properly evaluate Judge Roberts. But Judge Roberts' refusal to genuinely engage in the confirmation hearings, answer legitimate questions, or at least shed light on them creates a bigger one. I understand a Supreme Court nominee cannot answer questions about a case in controversy, cannot answer questions about a case that may well come before him, and I understand that he can't promise to resolve a future case in a particular way. I am not asking him to do that. I don't expect that to be the standard of the hearings. But that does not mean you can't discuss the principles of decided cases and whether you agree with them. What legal principles do you bring to the job? It doesn't mean you should refuse to disclose an approach to constitutional analysis. It doesn't mean you should do nothing more than recite the status of current Supreme Court case law. This is not the first time the Supreme Court nominees have refused to engage in that kind of meaningful discourse. Justice Souter refused to answer fundamental questions about his judicial philosophy. For that reason I voted against him at that time. I am happy to say I have been surprised, and pleasantly, that my concerns did not come to pass. Justice Thomas also refused to answer fundamental questions about judicial philosophy. As I said at the time, Justice Thomas found a lot of ways to say ``I don't know'' or ``I disagree'' or ``I cannot agree'' or ``I can't say whether I agree.'' I voted against Justice Thomas because again I didn't know what the end product was going to be. I believe I was correct in making that decision. At the end of the day I find myself in the same position I was with both of these Justices. Notwithstanding Judge Roberts' impressive legal resume, I can't say with confidence that I know what specific constitutional approach he believes in or what kind of Chief Justice he will be. Will he protect the civil rights and civil liberties we fought for so long and hard, which he acknowledged in the course of the hearings? Will he support the power of Congress to enact critical environmental legislation? Will he be an effective check on executive branch actions? In my judgment, before you vote for Chief Justice, particularly one who may lead a court for potentially 30 years or more, we ought to know the answers to those fundamental questions. In the case of Judge Roberts, we don't. For example, I don't know how Judge Roberts will approach cases challenging the power of Congress to enact vital national legislation. I understand that terms such as the ``Commerce Clause,'' ``Section 5 of the 14th Amendment,'' and ``Spending Clause'' don't mean a lot to everybody in the country on a daily basis. But however technical and legalistic the discussion of those terms may be, they are critical to us in our judgments as Senators about how our Government functions. A Justice with a limited view of congressional power will undermine Congress's ability to respond to national problems. For example, under the commerce clause, Congress can only regulate things that affect interstate commerce. When Congress enacted the Violence Against Women Act in 1996, it made numerous very specific findings about how that violence affected interstate commerce. The Court found those findings insufficient and struck down that piece of legislation. When asked by Senator Specter whether he agreed with the Court in this case, Judge Roberts refused to answer. When asked whether he would have found similar congressional findings insufficient, Judge Roberts refused to answer. I believe those answers ought to have been forthcoming, particularly when they address how Judge Roberts would interpret Congress's fundamental constitutional powers. Judge Roberts has shed some light himself on his view of the commerce clause because he wrote about it in a dissenting opinion on the DC Circuit. In Rancho Viejo v. Norton, the so-called ``hapless toad case,'' Roberts suggested that the Endangered Species Act, as applied to the California toads at issue, might be unconstitutional because they had an insufficient connection to interstate commerce. He also suggested there might be other ways of looking at the case to preserve the act's constitutionality. When asked about it during the hearings, and again personally in my own meeting with him, Judge Roberts did not endorse one view or the other. He gave no sense of how he might interpret Congress's power and its limitations. While his refusal to completely condemn the Endangered Species Act was obviously somewhat reassuring, at the end of the day, I am left without any real understanding of how he would approach a commerce clause question. I have no idea whether he will undermine Congress's ability to pass needed legislation. I have no idea how he will approach challenges to existing Federal environmental laws, such as the Endangered Species Act. Which of the possible approaches he laid out in Rancho Viejo does he believe is the most correct? This certainly creates a risk I personally am unwilling to accept when voting to confirm the next Chief Justice of the United States. Another area of great concern to me is obviously the area of privacy, an area where Judge Roberts skillfully answered a lot of questions without giving a hint as to his own position. For example, while Roberts admitted that the Court has recognized that privacy is protected under the Constitution as part of the liberty in the due process clause, he refused to give any indication of what he thought about the Court's most recent decisions. The furthest he went was to say he had no quarrel with the decisions in Griswold and Eisenstadt, yet this kind of endorsement is not reassuring. In his confirmation hearings, Justice Thomas agreed that the Court had found a constitutional right to privacy. Like Judge Roberts, he also stated he had no quarrel with the Court's holding in Eisenstadt. Yet when he got to the Supreme Court, he disavowed the very rights he had said the Constitution protected. In fact, more recently in Lawrence v. Texas, Justice Thomas stated he could not ``find [neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a] general right of privacy.'' The bottom line is I do not know how Judge Roberts will approach those questions with respect to the fundamental right of privacy. In addition to what I do not know, what I do know about Judge Roberts also raises issues. I know in the early 1980s, while he worked in the Department of Justice and White House Counsel's Office, Judge Roberts took an active role in advocating on behalf of administration policies that would have greatly undermined our civil rights and liberties. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, may I ask for an additional few minutes? Thank you. For example, Judge Roberts argued against using the ``effects test'' to determine whether section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was violated. Instead, he believed that an ``intent'' test--requiring proof of a discriminatory motive--should be required, regardless of the fact that many victims of discrimination would be absolutely unable to prove a real discriminatory intent and, therefore, would be unable to enjoy the protections afforded by the act. In some cases, the effect of Judge Roberts' intent test meant that disenfranchised individuals had to prove the motive of long dead officials who had crafted the legislation. Obviously, that is impossible. So he would have set up an unacceptable standard, one that would come between citizens and their constitutionally protected right to fair representation in our democracy. Judge Roberts also argued that the obligations imposed on educational institutions by title IX should apply only to the specific program that received Federal funding rather than to the whole institution. Again, by limiting the application of an important antidiscrimination law, there is an effect, which is to deny people their constitutional right. In the area of affirmative action, Judge Roberts argued in favor of limiting race-conscious remedies to instances where individuals were proven to be the victims of identifiable acts of impermissible discrimination. I realize Judge Roberts took the positions I just described some time ago. I know he told the Judiciary Committee he was simply advocating the views of the administration at the time. But I think those of us who have worked in and around Government for a period of time find it hard to believe that a staffer at Justice or in the White House never wrote a memo that represented some of his views rather than just administration positions, particularly when the theme of those memos is consistent across the board--strict adherence to narrow principles of law despite their real-world impact, and particularly when some of the memos released from this time include acknowledgements by Judge Roberts that his own position failed to prevail in the internal deliberations. That was certainly true when he argued, unsuccessfully, within the administration that Congress could strip the Federal courts of jurisdiction over abortion and desegregation cases. I will conclude, Mr. President. I do not want to abuse the Senator's permissiveness here. Let me close with this particular argument. Judge Roberts' more recent decision to join to Judge Randolph's opinion in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld is important with respect to the security consequences regarding the military and our soldiers. That opinion gave the President unfettered and unreviewable authority to place captured individuals outside the protections of the Geneva Convention. Six retired senior military officials with extensive experience in legal policy, the laws of war, and armed conflict, have filed a friend-of- the-court brief in the Supreme Court, arguing that Hamdan must be overturned immediately because it directly endangers American soldiers. These are the real effects of these rigid applications of law. I understand that Judge Roberts felt he could not discuss the case while it was pending before the Supreme Court, but even when asked about his views of the scope of executive power unrelated to the Hamdan case, he was evasive. He did little more than describe the Court's current framework for analyzing assertions of executive power. As a result, I do not know whether he believes that the state of war is a blank check for the President or whether he would closely scrutinize the legality of executive branch actions at all times. Given the fact that the Hamdan decision placed our troops at risk, I am forced to conclude that some of his future decisions might threaten the security of troops abroad and our security at home. Now, some may argue that Democrats ought to vote for Judge Roberts because he is the best nominee we could expect from the administration. I cannot agree to confirm the next Chief Justice of the United States simply because the next nominee to the Court may be less protective of our fundamental rights or liberties or less dangerous to national security. Frankly, I am not sure how I would make that determination given the limited record before me. Some may argue that Democrats should vote for Judge Roberts because of his resume. He obviously is qualified in terms of his legal education and litigation experience. But I do not think that should be the test. A Supreme Court Justice needs more qualifications than an impressive legal resume. They need compassion and sensitivity. They need a clarity with respect to their approach to the Constitution. They need an understanding of the consequences of their decisions and how they further democratic traditions. As a Senator, I am duty bound to consider each nominee as an individual and how he or she will fit into the current Court--the current closely divided Supreme Court. I have a duty to protect the fundamental rights I believe our Constitution guarantees. I have a duty to preserve the incredible progress that has been made toward the realization of those rights for Americans. I have a duty to safeguard our national security, and to prevent the executive from using war as a blank check to violate both national and international law. John Roberts will be confirmed. I hope and look forward to decisions that will allay all of my concerns. He may author or join opinions protecting the rights which we hold so dear, and in so doing he may prove all of my concerns to be groundless. I hope so. But the questions I have raised, the absence of critical documents, the lack of clarity surrounding fundamental issues on how he would interpret the Constitution, requires me to fulfill my constitutional duty by opposing his nomination to be the next Chief Justice. I thank the Chair again, and I thank the Senator for his courtesy.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, we are passing legislation which will provide immediate tax relief to those directly affected by this incredible disaster. This tax relief will help put cash in the hands of victims and encourage charitable giving. This legislation is needed, but I am deeply disappointed that this legislation is missing an extremely important component--relief for military reservists. We have rightfully focused on rescuing, reuniting and rebuilding, but we must also make sure to take care of our strained military families. The first and best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear our uniform. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep safe while they are keeping us safe. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. The Senate passed Hurricane Katrina tax relief legislation which looked out for our military reservists. More than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they are called to defend our nation, including those serving in the gulf coast today. These citizens serve nobly. They are much more than weekend warriors. Currently, there are over 140,000 reservists called up for active duty in the war against terrorism and over ten thousand of these reservists and guardsman are from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Over 50,000 National Guard members have been called up to assist with Hurricane Katrina. Many of these reservists are being hit with a double-whammy. After recent service in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are coming home to an area that has been devastated. The all-volunteer army depends on these reservists. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years, and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The Senate passed bill included an employee retention credit which provides a 40 percent tax credit for wages paid up to $6,000 after August 28, 2005 and before December 31, 2005. This credit would help employers in the gulf coast who pay employees that are not able to work because the business was either damaged or destroyed and pay reservists and guardsmen that worked for them right up to the time before they were deployed. Giving employers' incentives to pay reservist employees is the right thing to do. We have read about the Louisiana reservists who have come home from Iraq and found that they have lost everything. According to the Washington Post, nearly 550 of the Louisiana brigade's troops lost homes or loved ones or were otherwise affected by Katrina. The brigade is coming to the end of its rotation in Baghdad. This is exactly why we must provide a tax incentive that helps employers pay wages to these reservists. Businesses on the gulf coast want to do the right thing for their employees. But in the wake of this disaster, most just cannot afford it. During negotiations between the House and the Senate on a final Hurricane Katrina tax package, the employee retention credit was scaled back. Wages paid to reservists are no longer eligible for the credit. This is the wrong message to be sending to our reservists who put their lives on the line defending our country. Due to Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, the military has placed greater training and participation demands on reservists, taking them away from their families and jobs. We should be doing all we can to help these reservists, and this includes providing tax incentives to their employers who provide extended pay coverage. Providing tax incentives to help employers in the gulf coast impacted by Hurricane Katrina was a step in the right direction in helping reservists. For the last couple of years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked on legislation to provide assistance to businesses that employ reservists who have been called up to active duty. That legislation would provide tax credits to employers who pay reservists wages that are above their military pay and to help with the costs of hiring replacement workers. This provision passed the Senate twice last year, unfortunately, it was not enacted into law. This past Monday, I chaired a field hearing of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship entitled ``Military Reservists and Small Business: Supporting our Military Families and their Patriotic Small Business Employers.'' The hearing focused on the financial difficulties reservists who work for small businesses and their families face when they are called up to active duty. Lieutenant Colonel Sam Poulten told his compelling story. He was a partner in a real estate firm and he received a three-day notice that he was being called-up to serve as a medical Army reservist in Iraq. Lieutenant Colonel Poulten spent 13 months away from his business, which saw a loss in sales due to his absence. His wife had to resort to using credit cards to pay for basic necessities. Lieutenant Colonel Poulten is one of the many examples of a reservist whose family and business faced financial struggles due to long mobilization. Captain Marshall Hanson, USNR (Ret), Legislative Director of the Reserve Officers Association, discussed the consequences of mobilization and demobilization on military families and employers. He stated: Families and employers play a large role in a citizen- warrior's decision on whether or not to enlist and to remain in the military. Employer pressure is cited as one of the top reasons why reservists quit military service. We left military reservists who were personally impacted by Katrina out of this tax bill and this is wrong. After Monday's field hearing, I am convinced more than ever that we need to provide tax credits to small employers who pay reservists above their military wages and to help with the cost of a temporary replacement employee. I thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for working with me to include wages paid to eligible reservists and guardsman as part of the employee retention tax credit. Unfortunately, we were not able to have this provision included in the final package. I will continue to work on providing tax incentives for small business employers who have military reservists as employees. We must pass these tax incentives. If we do not make it easier for small businesses to employ military reservists, we will see a substantial decline in our reserve forces. According to published reports, the Army National Guard has missed its recruiting targets every month this year and appears certain to miss its third straight annual recruiting goal. Our military depends on these civilian-warriors. We need to recognize that the needs of our reserve forces are different than the needs of the career military. Our reservists did not sign-up for active duty, and they have been faced with long-term call ups and multiple call ups. I do not understand why we cannot pass legislation which provides tax incentive to help employer's of civilian-warriors when we continue to pass tax cuts that just benefit the wealthy. We need to do all that we can to help our reservists and the businesses that employ them to ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or end because of the effect service can have on work and family in this time of crisis.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senate Finance Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for their extraordinary work, to so expeditiously draft this important legislation in a bipartisan manner. This package will provide immediate tax relief to those directly affected by this incredible disaster. As we have rightfully focused on rescuing, reuniting and rebuilding, we must also make sure to take care of our strained military families. The first and best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear our uniform. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep safe while they are keeping us safe. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. More than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard memberssuffer pay cut when they are called to defend our Nation, including those serving in the gulf coast today. These citizens serve nobly. They are much more than weekend warriors. Currently, there are over 140,000 reservists called up for active duty in the war against terrorism and over 10,000 of these reservists and guardsman are from Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi. Over 50,000 National Guard members have been called up to assist with Hurricane Katrina. Many of these reservists are being hit with a double-whammy. After recent service in Iraq or Afghanistan, they are coming home to an area that has been devastated. The all-volunteer Army depends on these reservists. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years, and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. Businesses on the gulf coast want to do the right thing for their employees. But in the wake of this disaster, most just can't afford it. This legislation will help businesses do the right thing. The bill will provide an employee retention credit which provides a 40 percent tax credit for wages paid up to $6,000 after August 28, 2005 and before December 31, 2005. This credit will help employers in the gulf coast who pay employees that are not able to work because the business was either damaged or destroyed and pay reservists and guardsmen that worked for them right up to the time before they were deployed. For the last couple of years, Senator Landrieu and I have worked on legislation to provide assistance to businesses that employ reservists who have been called up to active duty. That legislation would provide tax credits to employers who pay reservists wages that are above their military pay and to help with the costs of hiring replacement workers. I thank Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for working with me to include wages paid to eligible reservists and guardsman as part of the employee retention tax credit. The Hurricane Katrina tax relief legislation helps our reservists and the businesses that employ them to ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or end because of the effect service can have on work and family in this time of crisis. I am also pleased that this tax package has a set of provisions to encourage charitable giving. We have all been overwhelmed by the generosity and compassion of the American people, who have sacrificed their time and money, sent food and supplies south by the truckload, and even opened up their homes to strangers. This provision will make giving easier, particularly by allowing rollover contributions from IRA accounts. This legislation is the right thing to do in the face of this disaster. It can help make sure our reservists' families don't have to sacrifice beyond their means while our brave men and women are away from home helping other families. This legislation can make it easier for the incomparable generosity of the American people to continue by easing some restrictions on charitable giving. Again, I thank Senators Grassley and Baucus for their efforts on this package.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor, but first let me thank Senator Mikulski and Senator Shelby also for their long forbearance in this effort. I appreciate it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say quickly I thank my colleagues, and I thank Senators Snowe and Landrieu and Vitter for their work on this amendment. I think the Senate has made a very important statement today about what can be done and what we need to do to respond immediately to the small business needs with respect to Katrina and people impacted across the country. This amendment details virtually everything in the Kerry-Landrieu amendment, from disaster loan deferments to financial assistance for small businesses and farmers struggling to afford the high prices of gasoline, natural gas, and heating oil. It expands on assistance to small businesses that have SBA 504 loans for buildings or equipment, or for those who will need them. It includes agreed upon language to make sure the money is appropriated to carry out the assistance. And it retains a critical grant program to the states to get money into the hands of small businesses that need immediate access to capital to stay afloat until they get other more comprehensive loans or insurance reimbursements. For all the good this amendment will do, I am disappointed that two very important provisions were not included. I am against taking out the funding for the Federal government's largest small business loan program, the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program, that would reduce fees on borrowers and lenders. Even before the destruction of Hurricane Katrina and its impact on our economy, small businesses were struggling with higher insurance premiums, higher energy prices, and higher prices for capital because of rising interest rates. We should not be adding to their expenses by raising loan fees. As I said yesterday, according to a document from the Small Business Administration, since the Administration raised fees in that program, loans to Hispanics have declined by 14 percent. With Katrina causing problems well beyond the state lines of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas, those small businesses need relief too. We asked our colleagues, at the very least, to include language that would reduce fees if the SBA overcharges borrowers or lenders, or if there are excess appropriations. They would not agree. They also eliminated the provision that directed the SBA to assume payments for SBA 7(a) and 504 loans that victims had before the Hurricane but cannot now pay. To help these business owners make ends meet, and to avoid defaults or worse, it is my hope that these small businesses will make use of the provision we put in the amendment that allows them to refinance existing business debt with low-cost SBA disaster loans. Hopefully, because this bill may well be tied up for a period of time, it may be possible to break this amendment out and add to it a couple of components that were not in it today. We hope to do that. We obviously will work with both sides to do it in the same bipartisan fashion. This morning Senator Landrieu met with some of the top members of the business community of New Orleans. They are very afraid for those small businesses that have to lease, contract, move, and they are afraid of losing for a long period of time, if not forever, the small business base of their community. What the Senate has done today is to address that need in a very realistic and helpful way. I thank my colleagues for doing so. With that stated, my original amendment, which we now combined into this one, is no longer necessary. I ask unanimous consent it be withdrawn.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the pending business, I believe, is my original amendment. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I offer this amendment, together with Senator Landrieu, to provide comprehensive relief to small businesses harmed by Hurricane Katrina. There are two reasons why it is important to do this at this time on this bill. No. 1, the $63 billion of combined assistance in the two supplemental spending bills doesn't allocate one portion of it to small businesses specifically. So there is no small business relief--no funding for small business assistance within the structure of the SBA or for other small business assistance programs Congress has created. No. 2, this appropriations bill is the funding source for the Small Business Administration. It is through the Small Business Administration that disaster loan assistance is available for homeowners and for business owners, and it is through the Small Business Administration that the Federal Government provides the full complement of assistance to the small businesses of our Nation. So it is appropriate for us to be doing this at this time. The SBA is indispensable to the recovery of the gulf region after Hurricane Katrina. I was down there on Monday and could see for myself the numbers of small business people who are impacted, listening to the Governor, the Lieutenant Governor, Congressman Jefferson and others, all of whom described how critical this help is going to be. The States concerned-- Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana--are still in the process of assessing the full extent of the damage. There are an estimated 800,000 small businesses in those three States, but already we have received reports that more than 100,000 in Louisiana and some 50,000 in Mississippi were damaged or destroyed completely. We also know that in Louisiana alone, small businesses provide more than 65 percent of the jobs. Sixty-five percent is typical for most of America, which is why Senator after Senator comes to the floor and goes home to their States and talks about the importance of small business to the American economy. What the mayor of Baton Rouge told me, what the Governors told me, and other officials I spoke with, is how critical it is to be able to get the local population back to work as fast as possible and to try to mitigate against some of the dislocation. The only way we are going to get people back to work, the only way we get these areas thriving again, is to make small business a priority of the recovery itself. Our amendment recognizes that it is going to take months, if not years, for a lot of businesses to get back to normal. SBA's Federal disaster loans and physical damage loans and economic injury loans are going to play a critical role in this recovery. Our amendment also recognizes that similar to the domino effect of the 9/11 attacks--the domino effect that those attacks had on our economy in other places--we need to help not only those businesses physically located within the declared disaster area, but also an awful lot of businesses that have been indirectly harmed because of the loss of business directly to those areas or because of the increase in fuel prices. The tourism industry, for instance, is so important to New Orleans and has suppliers around the country. Travel agents who book conferences, companies that provide food and beverages and supplies for the hotels, restaurants, and bars. Suddenly they have no orders. There are small businesses that could help rebuild the damaged and destroyed homes, businesses, and infrastructure of the gulf region. But they need legal protection to make sure they can be part of the Federal contracts paying for these projects and services. One of the reasons for this is that too often the Federal Government, in its effort to move rapidly, which we understand, takes the easiest route or path of least resistance and gives big contracts to the Halliburtons of the world, leaving a lot of the local economy and small businesses still gasping, looking for their way into that pipeline. Then, of course, there is the underestimated but, frankly, always essential counselor component. A lot of small businesses need help figuring out how to restructure, how to process all of this, how to make up for the loss of business. Many of them have viable businesses. With a small amount of assistance they can keep that viability and minimize the negative impact to our economy and to their business. In order to put this package together in a way that addressed the real needs of the communities, I have worked closely with Senator Landrieu who, along with her staff, has worked tirelessly in recent days to determine what the businesses in her State need to get Louisiana small business on the road to recovery. I think we ought to be encouraged--frankly, all of us in the Senate ought to be encouraged--at how much we can do under the auspices of the Small Business Administration, recognizing that a lot of these businesses have no way of fully operating now or any time soon. We try to take steps to defer for 2 years the interest and the principal payment for those businesses located directly in the disaster area, those that have been adversely impacted. For small businesses directly impacted, we permit them to use disaster loans, which have interest rates capped at 4 percent. I remind my colleagues that these are loans. These aren't grants. We allow small businesses to refinance existing disaster loans and existing business debt in order to consolidate their debt and lower their interest payments. For those small businesses directly impacted that had SBA 7(a) and 504 loans before Katrina, if they are unable to make their payments, we direct the SBA to assume the payments for up to 2 years or until the businesses can resume payments earlier on their own. For small businesses that are directly impacted, such as suppliers to the extensive tourism industry in the gulf coast, we make available SBA 7(a) loans at reduced rates, with protections to make sure that those who need the loans are the ones getting them. For small businesses that need counseling, we increase funding to SBA's counseling partners to serve businesses, whether they are in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama, or whether they are still displaced in other States such as Texas or Arizona. We put in place contracting protections to encourage the Federal Government to help rebuild the economy by using local businesses or small businesses. We authorize $400 million in grants to the States in the declared disaster areas in order to make immediate bridge loans or grants to those small businesses directly harmed by Hurricane Katrina that need access to money immediately and can't wait for the disbursement of Federal loans or other assistance. This has worked in the past, and it can work now. As we all know, Hurricane Katrina knocked out roughly 10 percent of U.S. oil refining and natural gas pipeline capacity. That has caused prices for gasoline and natural gas to go through the roof all over the country. Experts estimate the impact is going to hit us in the winter as well when heating oil prices are going to increase as much as 70 percent. To help small businesses and farmers and manufacturers that are being crippled by these energy prices, we give them access to low- cost disaster loans. This is a very straightforward example of how businesses outside the disaster area have been indirectly and seriously adversely impacted. The other day, I was driving through a couple of States well north of Washington, DC--not in Massachusetts but New Jersey, New York, and elsewhere--and the gas prices are all reflecting the effects of Katrina. Small farmers in the Presiding Officer's State of South Dakota, North Dakota, Wisconsin, Iowa, and all across the country are deeply impacted by the cost of fuel for their tractors or for their trucks for deliveries all across the country. This will help the small businesses and farmers and manufacturers that are being crippled. The high cost of energy is making American manufacturing noncompetitive. Talk to truckers who are traversing the Nation about the cost of fuel. It's a huge portion of the current price of goods consumed by the increased energy prices. The result is a lot of folks who are teetering on the edge with loans out and financed are now finding themselves in economic difficulty. So this is a way to help them, and this tries to do that. I point out to my colleagues that previously the energy relief portion of this amendment has passed the Senate three times. There are 37 Republican Senators currently in the Senate who have previously voted for this on several occasions. Our hope is that we can proceed forward. In addition, to help drive down the impact of Hurricane Katrina and its toll on the economy as a whole--including added costs to health care for small business, energy for small business, and rising interest rates--we temporarily lower the interest rate set by the Federal Government itself. There is no need for us to recoup at the same rate, if it helps those businesses remain viable. The Congressional Hispanic Caucus has been calling for this relief for Hispanic small business owners because ever since the administration raised the fees on 7(a) loans, loans to Hispanics have fallen by 14 percent. With the added problems to the economy caused by Hurricane Katrina, making capital more affordable is a way to open the doors of opportunity and to help people to be able to keep the economy moving. In closing, I thank Senator Reid, Senator Mikulski, and Senator Landrieu for their leadership and help in shaping this legislation. The coming weeks and months are critical for small businesses. Frankly, it is too easy to go to the meetings back home and stand up in front of the small business community and say: Aren't you great; you are 98 percent of the businesses of America. You are the engine of our economy. Over 60 percent of America's employees work in small business. Almost all the new jobs in America come from small business. Small business has been hurt by the hurricane and by the indirect impact of that hurricane on other sectors of our economy. This is an opportunity for the Senate to be able to address those dire needs. I hope my colleagues will join in that effort. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside and that we call up amendment No. 1695.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week world leaders are meeting at the United Nations to reaffirm the commitments made five years ago under the United Nations Millennium Declaration, including the commitment to halt and begin to reverse by the year 2015 the spread of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other major diseases that claim the lives of millions of people around the world every year. We still have a long way to go if we are going to meet this challenge. AIDS, which has already claimed the lives of 20 million people, continues to be the leading cause of premature death in sub-Saharan Africa. An estimated 39 million people worldwide are infected with HIV. Last year alone, 4.9 million people were newly infected with HIV, and 3.1 million died. For years, the epidemic was focused on sub-Saharan Africa, but now HIV is spreading fastest in Central Europe and in parts of Asia. Although the AIDS pandemic has gripped the world's notice, other diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis have drawn less attention-- but they too are deadly, particularly for those in the world's poorest countries. Malaria claims the lives of a million people annually, many of them young children; ninety percent of these deaths occur among people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Tuberculosis, once thought to be eradicated, has reemerged in new and more drug resistant strains. An estimated 1.7 million people now die annually from TB. Because those living with HIV or AIDS are particularly vulnerable, the number of TB cases has been growing rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Europe. Taken together HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria kill over 5 million people annually. A human crisis of this proportion demands that we respond with urgency and thoughtfulness. We must continue to support robust prevention, treatment and care programs. But we must also recognize that vaccines are the most effective weapons in the arsenal of modern medicine to stop the threat of AIDS and other infectious diseases that are decimating the developing world. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, however, are reluctant to invest in research for vaccines for these diseases because they fear that the market will not be lucrative enough to cover the costs of research and development The bill that I am introducing today, Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2005, is designed to address this problem by providing incentives for these companies to accelerate their efforts to develop vaccines and microbicides to prevent HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other neglected diseases. It builds upon legislation that I introduced in 2001 with Senator Frist. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, is joining me in introducing this new, expanded bill. The bill provides a variety of economic incentives. First, it mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury enter into negotiations with the World Bank, the International Development Association, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and other interested parties in order to establish advanced market commitments, AMCs, for the purchase of vaccines and microbicides to combat neglected diseases. Research has shown that the major obstacle to the development of vaccines for these diseases is the absence of a market because these diseases hit hardest in poor countries that cannot afford to buy the vaccines. Advanced market commitments AMCs are designed to remove this obstacle by creating the market ahead of time. AMCs would be legally binding contracts to purchase a vaccine or microbicide at a fair market price for a guaranteed number of treatments, thereby creating a market incentive for a company to invest in the development and production of vaccines for these diseases. The international framework for the AMCs would also include clearly defined requirements for eligible vaccines to ensure that they are safe and effective as well as clearly defined and transparent rules of competition. The bill also mandates that the Secretary establish a purchase fund in the Treasury as soon as a vaccine to combat one of these diseases is available. Second, the bill supplements the market incentive with a variety of tax incentives designed to provide appropriate and equitable incentives to both large pharmaceutical and small private sector companies to stimulate vaccine development. The bill provides a 30 percent tax credit each year on qualified research expenses to develop microbicides for HIV and vaccines for HIV, TB, malaria and other neglected diseases that kill more than 1 million people annually. This is an expansion of the existing R&D tax credit and can be applied to clinical trials outside of the United States, since the majority of those infected with these diseases are beyond our borders. It provides a refundable tax credit to small biotechnology companies based on the amount of qualified research that they do in a given year. This credit is designed to stimulate research among the firms that are the most innovative and to ensure that assistance is given to those small companies that need it the most. Increased research efforts by these firms could be instrumental to the effort to develop effective vaccines for neglected diseases, particularly for HIV/AIDS. And it provides a 100 percent tax credit on contracts and other arrangements for research and development of these vaccines and microbicides. This credit, which is an increase over the 65 percent credit now in the tax code, is designed to serve as an incentive to larger pharmaceutical companies to work hand in hand with the smaller biotech companies to pick up the pace of vaccine development. Once vaccines are developed, it is imperative that they be widely distributed. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Lugar also addresses the distribution side of the equation. It provides a 100 percent tax credit to companies on the sales of new vaccines and microbicides as long as those sales are made to a qualified international health organization or foreign government for distribution in developing countries Finally, the bill sets up a pilot program under the Small Business Act to encourage the development of vaccines and microbicides by eligible companies under the auspices of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs in US government agencies with a global health or disease prevention mission. Under this pilot program, these agencies have new authority to undertake outreach activities to eligible biotech firms and other small business to promote the objectives of the pilot program. In recent years, a number of pharmaceutical companies have taken steps to help in the treatment of those infected with AIDS by providing life-extending therapies to the developing world at reduced costs. These drugs are critically important but the war against AIDS cannot be won unless we develop vaccines against the HIV virus and other neglected diseases. The pharmaceutical and biotech companies hold the key Many steps need to be taken in the war against these diseases. This bill focuses on only one area but a critically important one: vaccine development and distribution. If the public and private sectors work together with energy and commitment, I believe we can develop the vaccines, and once developed, we will win the war against these deadly diseases that victimize so many in the developing world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Communications Security Act of 2005. The events of 9/11 uncovered manifest structural weaknesses in our communications system, which were then highlighted by the 9/11 Commission. At the time, public safety and emergency response officials were not able to communicate at a basic level. We have not taken adequate steps to fix that dangerous problem, and Hurricane Katrina has bluntly demonstrated that. Much of the communications system was knocked off-line along the Gulf Coast. It was remarkable to watch as the television news crews had better luck communicating than our first responders. As the disaster unfolded, our first responders and emergency officials repeatedly cited communications failures as a major obstacle to the disaster response effort. We need a redundant communications system that will work in times of emergency. Dramatic advances in technology and the availability of new spectrum as part of the DTV transition offer opportunities to address this problem. The Communications Security Act of 2005 requires the technical experts at the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications Commission evaluate the feasibility and cost of deploying a back-up emergency communications system. The agencies will evaluate all reasonable options, including satellites, wireless and terrestrial-based systems. They will evaluate all available public and private resources that could provide such a system and submit a report to Congress detailing the findings. The DHS is then authorized to request appropriations to implement the system. Congress would then be in position to put in place whatever programs and funding are needed to get the job done. This proposal will not resolve all of our long-term needs in preparedness and interoperability, and I am pleased that many of my colleagues are working on the various pieces of this puzzle. However, in the interim, we must ensure that we can respond in emergency situations with an eye toward building a reliable, redundant system for the long term. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Communications Security Act of 2005. The events of 9/11 uncovered manifest structural weaknesses in our communications system, which were then highlighted by the 9/11 Commission. At the time, public safety and emergency response officials were not able to communicate at a basic level. We have not taken adequate steps to fix that dangerous problem, and Hurricane Katrina has bluntly demonstrated that. Much of the communications system was knocked off-line along the Gulf Coast. It was remarkable to watch as the television news crews had better luck communicating than our first responders. As the disaster unfolded, our first responders and emergency officials repeatedly cited communications failures as a major obstacle to the disaster response effort. We need a redundant communications system that will work in times of emergency. Dramatic advances in technology and the availability of new spectrum as part of the DTV transition offer opportunities to address this problem. The Communications Security Act of 2005 requires the technical experts at the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications Commission evaluate the feasibility and cost of deploying a back-up emergency communications system. The agencies will evaluate all reasonable options, including satellites, wireless and terrestrial-based systems. They will evaluate all available public and private resources that could provide such a system and submit a report to Congress detailing the findings. The DHS is then authorized to request appropriations to implement the system. Congress would then be in position to put in place whatever programs and funding are needed to get the job done. This proposal will not resolve all of our long-term needs in preparedness and interoperability, and I am pleased that many of my colleagues are working on the various pieces of this puzzle. However, in the interim, we must ensure that we can respond in emergency situations with an eye toward building a reliable, redundant system for the long term. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week world leaders are meeting at the United Nations to reaffirm the commitments made five years ago under the United Nations Millennium Declaration, including the commitment to halt and begin to reverse by the year 2015 the spread of HIV/AIDs, malaria, and other major diseases that claim the lives of millions of people around the world every year. We still have a long way to go if we are going to meet this challenge. AIDS, which has already claimed the lives of 20 million people, continues to be the leading cause of premature death in sub-Saharan Africa. An estimated 39 million people worldwide are infected with HIV. Last year alone, 4.9 million people were newly infected with HIV, and 3.1 million died. For years, the epidemic was focused on sub-Saharan Africa, but now HIV is spreading fastest in Central Europe and in parts of Asia. Although the AIDS pandemic has gripped the world's notice, other diseases such as malaria and tuberculosis have drawn less attention-- but they too are deadly, particularly for those in the world's poorest countries. Malaria claims the lives of a million people annually, many of them young children; ninety percent of these deaths occur among people living in sub-Saharan Africa. Tuberculosis, once thought to be eradicated, has reemerged in new and more drug resistant strains. An estimated 1.7 million people now die annually from TB. Because those living with HIV or AIDS are particularly vulnerable, the number of TB cases has been growing rapidly in sub-Saharan Africa and Central Europe. Taken together HIV/AIDS, TB and malaria kill over 5 million people annually. A human crisis of this proportion demands that we respond with urgency and thoughtfulness. We must continue to support robust prevention, treatment and care programs. But we must also recognize that vaccines are the most effective weapons in the arsenal of modern medicine to stop the threat of AIDS and other infectious diseases that are decimating the developing world. Pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, however, are reluctant to invest in research for vaccines for these diseases because they fear that the market will not be lucrative enough to cover the costs of research and development The bill that I am introducing today, Vaccines for the New Millennium Act of 2005, is designed to address this problem by providing incentives for these companies to accelerate their efforts to develop vaccines and microbicides to prevent HIV/AIDS, TB, malaria and other neglected diseases. It builds upon legislation that I introduced in 2001 with Senator Frist. I am pleased that the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, is joining me in introducing this new, expanded bill. The bill provides a variety of economic incentives. First, it mandates that the Secretary of the Treasury enter into negotiations with the World Bank, the International Development Association, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, and other interested parties in order to establish advanced market commitments, AMCs, for the purchase of vaccines and microbicides to combat neglected diseases. Research has shown that the major obstacle to the development of vaccines for these diseases is the absence of a market because these diseases hit hardest in poor countries that cannot afford to buy the vaccines. Advanced market commitments AMCs are designed to remove this obstacle by creating the market ahead of time. AMCs would be legally binding contracts to purchase a vaccine or microbicide at a fair market price for a guaranteed number of treatments, thereby creating a market incentive for a company to invest in the development and production of vaccines for these diseases. The international framework for the AMCs would also include clearly defined requirements for eligible vaccines to ensure that they are safe and effective as well as clearly defined and transparent rules of competition. The bill also mandates that the Secretary establish a purchase fund in the Treasury as soon as a vaccine to combat one of these diseases is available. Second, the bill supplements the market incentive with a variety of tax incentives designed to provide appropriate and equitable incentives to both large pharmaceutical and small private sector companies to stimulate vaccine development. The bill provides a 30 percent tax credit each year on qualified research expenses to develop microbicides for HIV and vaccines for HIV, TB, malaria and other neglected diseases that kill more than 1 million people annually. This is an expansion of the existing R&D tax credit and can be applied to clinical trials outside of the United States, since the majority of those infected with these diseases are beyond our borders. It provides a refundable tax credit to small biotechnology companies based on the amount of qualified research that they do in a given year. This credit is designed to stimulate research among the firms that are the most innovative and to ensure that assistance is given to those small companies that need it the most. Increased research efforts by these firms could be instrumental to the effort to develop effective vaccines for neglected diseases, particularly for HIV/AIDS. And it provides a 100 percent tax credit on contracts and other arrangements for research and development of these vaccines and microbicides. This credit, which is an increase over the 65 percent credit now in the tax code, is designed to serve as an incentive to larger pharmaceutical companies to work hand in hand with the smaller biotech companies to pick up the pace of vaccine development. Once vaccines are developed, it is imperative that they be widely distributed. The bill that I am introducing today with Senator Lugar also addresses the distribution side of the equation. It provides a 100 percent tax credit to companies on the sales of new vaccines and microbicides as long as those sales are made to a qualified international health organization or foreign government for distribution in developing countries Finally, the bill sets up a pilot program under the Small Business Act to encourage the development of vaccines and microbicides by eligible companies under the auspices of the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, and the Small Business Technology Transfer, STTR, programs in US government agencies with a global health or disease prevention mission. Under this pilot program, these agencies have new authority to undertake outreach activities to eligible biotech firms and other small business to promote the objectives of the pilot program. In recent years, a number of pharmaceutical companies have taken steps to help in the treatment of those infected with AIDS by providing life-extending therapies to the developing world at reduced costs. These drugs are critically important but the war against AIDS cannot be won unless we develop vaccines against the HIV virus and other neglected diseases. The pharmaceutical and biotech companies hold the key Many steps need to be taken in the war against these diseases. This bill focuses on only one area but a critically important one: vaccine development and distribution. If the public and private sectors work together with energy and commitment, I believe we can develop the vaccines, and once developed, we will win the war against these deadly diseases that victimize so many in the developing world. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. There being no objection the bill was ordered to be printed in the Record as follows:

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I regret having to miss the vote on the Collins-Leahy mercury resolution on the floor today; however, I am in Louisiana delivering supplies to the victims of Hurricane Katrina. It is my understanding that my absence will not affect the outcome of this vote. The scientific evidence regarding the role that mercury contamination plays in public health and the environment speaks to the importance of this issue. Mercury is a potent neurotoxin harmful to fetuses' and infants' nervous systems. Frighteningly, one in six women of childbearing age in the United States carries enough accumulated mercury in her body to pose risks of adverse health effects to her children should she become pregnant. But it doesn't end there. A recent study found links between mercury and childhood developmental disabilities such as autism. Forty-five States have fish advisories for mercury warning pregnant women and children to limit their consumption of many fish caught in freshwater. And researchers have warned that mercury is associated with cardiovascular disease in adult men. Facing this threat to the environment and our public health, the Bush EPA has failed. Whether through effort or error, it has repeatedly taken its lead from regulated industries, overlooked sound science, and put the demands of the special interest ahead of the public interest. EPA has indefensibly purported to overturn its obligation under the Clean Air Act to adopt far more protective mercury regulations by 2008. Simultaneously the Agency has substituted far weaker measures that do not require any specific mercury reductions before 2018, and even then delay the ultimate reductions for an additional decade. As Members of the Senate, we have a unique opportunity under the Congressional Review Act to send the mercury powerplant rule back to the EPA for a thorough review. Only through a new rulemaking can we hope to develop a scientifically sound proposal that will protect the public health, protect the economy and give the public any confidence in the regulatory process.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to reiterate my support for the Department of Transportation's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise, DBE Program. This program is an effective tool used by the Department of Transportation to make real the promises of our Founding Fathers and the fundamental values of our Nation: economic opportunity, equal opportunity, a chance to be able to share in the remarkable assets of our Nation. The DBE Program is a much needed program. It is an essential tool in combating the continuing effects of discrimination in the highway construction industry and in creating a level playing field for all businesses. It accomplishes these goals in a completely constitutional way without establishing quotas and, whenever possible, enhancing contracting opportunities in race and gender neutral ways. Let me explain how the DBE program works. In past debates, my colleagues in the Senate have criticized the program for lacking flexibility. This is simply not true. Mr. President, this is not a quota it expressly prohibits quotas. This program offers a set-aside of a specific amount of money, but there is no specific direction as to who gets that amount of money. There is no quota of numbers of women, no quotas of numbers of particular races. It is open to any disadvantaged business enterprise. And, while we set aside a very specific sum of money, the money is not allocated with specificity. This program is intended to help level the playing field for businesses owned by individuals who have historically suffered discrimination in Federal contracting based on their gender, race or ethnicity, and who continue to suffer as a result of that discrimination. To ensure that these firms receive their fair share of Federal contracts, Congress set a national goal. I reaffirm that it is appropriate in this country to set national goals for what we will do to try to break down the walls of discrimination, the barriers against equal opportunity, in order to give people an opportunity to share in the full breadth of the upside of the economy of our Nation. The goal for each agency, including the Department of Transportation, is negotiated on an annual basis, allowing the flexibility that is so desired. In addition, the DBE Program is very flexible. It allows each State to respond to local conditions. In the implementation of the DBE Program, the Secretary of Transportation has the authority to increase, decrease or even waive the DBE goal where it is not possible to achieve the goal in a particular contract or for a given year. Many opponents to this and other programs aimed at offering assistance to disadvantaged business owners often argue that it is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's decision in Adarand v. Pena which required that affirmative actions programs, such as this one, be ``narrowly tailored'' to serve the Government's ``compelling interest.'' It is clear that rectifying past discrimination is a compelling Government interest. And, I believe that the flexibility I described above demonstrates that program is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In fact, it has been upheld by every court that has reviewed it. It is the duty of Congress to use whatever means available to this body to enhance competition on federally funded projects by promoting equal opportunity and the full participation of all segments of the community in a marketplace environment that is free from the effects of past or present discrimination. The reality is that those effects, those inequalities and those injustices still exist. Justice Sandra day O'Conner, who penned the Supreme Court's majority opinion in the Adarand decision, stated, ``the unhappy persistence of both the practice and the lingering effects of racial discrimination against minority groups in this country is an unfortunate reality, and government is not disqualified from acting in response to it.'' Many of the firms that have been able to use the program, the women- owned firms or minority-owned businesses, literally would have been excluded from doing so altogether were it not for the DBE Program. Arguments against these programs often point to the possibility of firms being excluded for other reasons such as size, experience or specific qualifications necessary. However, the reality in America's history is that the individuals running these disadvantaged firms often do not meet these standards because they were prevented from doing so by a lack of access to capital, training, or even blatant discriminatory Government policies. As the Congress, and this body in particular, has upheld in numerous debates, the Federal Government has an affirmative obligation, both a statutory one and a moral one, to make certain that we are going to do something very specific to respond to that kind of discrimination. Mr. President, time has shown that the DBE Program works. It is a program that meets constitutional muster. It is a program that has a rational, national compelling interest. I am happy to reiterate my support for this essential program that has served an enormous benefit to countless minority- and women-owned businesses in the country. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish the senior Senator from New Mexico were in the Senate because I wanted to say a few words to him personally as well as about him, but in his absence I will certainly say them. In the Senate, we all have an ability, thank Heaven, to be able to separate the policy from personality and from the personal. I know how hard Senator Domenici has worked through the years. I know how committed he is personally to developing an energy policy. That goes, also, for the junior Senator from New Mexico, my friend Senator Bingaman, who has worked closely and diligently under difficult circumstances to try to deal with these energy issues. On a personal level, I am genuinely happy for the Senator from New Mexico because I know this is a moment of completion for him, and on a personal level he is happy and he has worked hard to get there. All Members are gratified when a colleague has that kind of success. Nevertheless, on a policy level, I have enormous disagreements with where this bill has finally put the Senate and our country. Our Nation's energy crisis has reached historic levels. What we need today is not a policy that puts enough good stuff in it that enough Senators will grab onto it and say: OK, I can vote for that bill. What we need is an energy policy that is as bold and big as the challenge is significant to the country. That is not, under any analysis, what we are getting in this bill. This is, frankly, largely a lobbyist-driven bill. What underscores that is when you measure what is happening in this bill--as you must in making any decent policy for our country--when you measure this bill against families who are struggling to balance their checkbooks, who cannot pay easily the additional cost of gasoline, when you measure this bill against small businesses, which have had an enormous rise in the cost of doing business--just the cost of getting to and from the business, let alone the cost of trucks delivering goods to that business. There has been something like a $25 billion to $30 billion energy gas tax increase on businesses over the course of the last couple years. They are paying those additional costs. We passed, in the Senate, an energy provision to be able to provide loans--not grants, not giveaways, but loans--to those businesses so that they might be able to adjust for the cash flow problems they have because of the increased cost of energy. The Senate passed it. The Senate passed it 3 years ago. But it was taken out in the conference. Gone from this bill is any kind of emergency lending assistance to the small businesses of our country that are hard-pressed because of energy costs. Why? What is the reason for that? When you see our children breathing air already that is dangerously polluted, and you know the levels of asthma among children are increasing, and the greatest cause for the hospitalization of children in the summertime in America is an asthma attack, which is air-induced, and the quality of our air is not being cleaned as much as it was, as rapidly as it could be, nevertheless, you see us going backward with respect to the new source performance standards in air quality, when you read about rival nations that are rapidly moving ahead of the United States of America with respect to alternative energy technologies--and they are creating high-paying jobs by moving in that direction--but the United States is only moving incrementally, without a genuine commitment--and I will come to that in a minute--when you recognize that our dependence on foreign oil sees us sending $25 billion a year just to the Gulf States alone--Mr. President, $200,000 a minute, $13 million an hour, we send to those countries; And how much of that money falls into the hands of Hamas, al-Qaida--when you see what the complication of oil dependency does to the foreign policy of the United States as well as the health, economy, and security of our Nation, you have to ask yourself why we are not moving more rapidly to deal with these issues. Senator Domenici said a moment ago this is the largest portion that has gone to renewables. Well, let me show my colleagues this pie chart, which simply contradicts that. That is not accurate. It may be a larger amount of money than it has been in the past, but of the money that is being put out in this bill, only 16 percent goes to renewables. And 10 percent goes to efficiency. That is a total, between them, of 26 percent going to renewables and efficiency. Mr. President, 37 percent alone, eclipsing renewables and eclipsing efficiency combined, is going to nuclear--going to nuclear. When you add the combination of oil and gas, you have an enormous proportion of this bill's tax benefits and funding that is going to the status quo--the status quo--``same old same old'' energy policy of the United States, not to the creation of the new high-paying jobs, to clean air and to renewables and the kind of technologies we need. There is no explanation for that. Mr. President, I voted for the Senate bill. I joined with colleagues, 85 of us, in sending a bill to the conference that had about a 50-50 split. I was not pleased with a 50-50 split. I thought we could have done better than that. Guess what. We are going backward in this bill. Why? What is the rationale? What is the policy rationale for having taken a Senate bill that had a larger amount of money going to renewables and alternatives, that passed with 85 votes, and here we are with a bill on the floor of the Senate that has a paltry 26 percent, only 16 percent going to renewables? If you ask the American people, the American people would overwhelmingly vote to do otherwise. But the Senate will not. The conference committee takes a huge step backward in other places-- for instance, the requirement that U.S. utilities generate 10 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020, 15 years from now. We are trying to set a goal that just 10 percent of America's electricity is going to be produced from alternatives and renewables. We could achieve it. Other nations are moving to a much higher level of alternatives and renewables. Not the United States of America. We are going to do the ``same old same old.'' We are going to do the nuclear and do the oil and gas. Well, most of our electricity actually is not oil-fired. It is either coal-fired or natural gas-fired. But the fact is that instead of setting a standard, which we had in the Senate--in the Senate bill, we said 10 percent of the electricity by 2020 will be from renewable sources--that is gone, taken out of the bill. Why? Because special interests on the House side demanded that happen. As to language that recognized global warming, I remember how many Senators came to the floor, and they all embraced the language of global warming in a nonbinding resolution. They just said: We are going to deal with it, and this is important. Guess what. Even the nonbinding language that acknowledged the problem of global warming has been taken out. There is nothing in this legislation to deal with one of the single greatest environmental challenges on the face of this planet-- nothing. And how do you explain this next one? The United States uses about 19 million barrels of oil a day. We had a requirement in the Senate bill that we reduce oil consumption in America by 1 million barrels a day. Imagine that: We were going to try to get 1 million out of 19 million. We were going to require that the country set a goal of reducing that dependency on oil. Gone. It has been taken out. Why? Why would we not want, as a nation, to set a goal of trying to reduce our dependency? I guarantee you, Mr. President, we are going to be back here in the Senate facing real energy crises as we deal with the realities of what is going to happen in the world, with a China that is going to move to something like 13 million barrels of consumption on a daily basis from about 5 today. You have India that is going to go from about 2 million barrels up to 5 million barrels a day. You are going to have some trillions of dollars that are going to continue to be exported abroad, and you will see more efforts by China and other countries to take the fruits of their oil and buy American companies. Is America going to be stronger for that? I would like to know why, instead, billions of American tax dollars are not going to go to renewables and alternatives, but they are going to go into oil and gas. Let me make it clear. I support clean coal technology. I think it is important. It is one of the most vast resources of the United States, one of our biggest reserves. And it is absolutely technologically feasible for us to be able to burn coal more cleanly. We need to do that. I support our efforts to move in that direction. But why, at the last minute, is there a $1.5 billion deal that goes to Halliburton? Halliburton, which is making billions of dollars off of Iraq, Halliburton, which is a hugely profitable company, is going to get $1.5 billion out of this instead of some of these other nascent technologies that are screaming for assistance. Why is it that children are going to get weaker environmental protections, dirtier air and water? Is there any person in the Senate who has received mail from their constituents saying: Give me dirtier air for my kids. Give us dirtier water to drink. That is what you are getting. That is what this bill gives you. Americans get no relief at the pump. And we are left more dependent on foreign oil than we are today. Imagine that. Here is an energy policy that people are going to come and celebrate. I can see the President's signing ceremony now. And he will go out and tell America how terrific it is going to be. But this does nothing to reduce American dependency on oil. Let me make it clear. Don't take my word for it. The President's own economists say that oil imports will increase 85 percent by 2025 under this proposal. The President's own economists found--and I quote them-- [C]hanges to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible [in this bill]. In other words, the very things we want to affect--prices, consumption, imports, production--are going to be negligibly affected by this bill. You do not have to be an expert, you can be a kid in any classroom in America, in middle school or elementary, and know that if the United States of America only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves--that is all we have in all of Alaska, underneath all of our national monuments, in all of our waters that are accessible to the United States. We have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Saudi Arabia alone has 65 percent of it. As I have said many times, and as this bill ignores, there is no possible way for the United States of America to build its security in the long term by drilling our way out of this crisis. We have to invent our way out of it. This bill barely scratches the surface of the kind of invention America is capable of and the kinds of opportunities we know of. I heard the Senator a moment ago say we do not have the ability now to be able to do better in our automobiles. That is just not true. For a $200 expenditure, anybody could go out now and get their car converted to be able to go use ethanol fuel, biomass fuel. It is just that we do not do enough of it. Imagine what we could do for farmers across our Nation. Imagine what we could do with respect to the possibility of new jobs and new production facilities and delivery facilities and infrastructure. None of that is being adequately tapped with respect to this legislation. All you have to do is look at what this bill does for the environment. There is in this bill an amendment to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Do you know what it does? It allows unregulated underground injection of chemicals during oil and gas development so that we threaten clean water. Did anybody in America say, I think it is a good idea for us to have chemicals put into the underground water supply in order to bring out oil and gas? Why would we exempt it from the standards we have applied to our Nation over the course of the last 30 years? The oil and gas industry is getting an exemption for their construction activities from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Why would you exempt construction activities from compliance with the Clean Water Act? The Energy bill also requires an inventory of offshore oil and natural gas resources. That is supposed to pave the way for offshore drilling along America's coastlines, including areas off Florida's coastline, which is banned. This Energy bill should have been a net plus for the environment. Instead, it goes backward. Are there some positive provisions in this bill? Of course there are. I could stand up here and talk about the importance of clean coal technology. There are other things. I am encouraged by the strong, new standards and consumer protections in electricity. I am encouraged we finally authorized Energy Star. But the bottom line is, we did better in the Senate bill that went to the conference committee. We did better. And there is no policy rationale, no common sense in going backward from the standards that were set in that Senate bill. The fact is, if we end our energy dependence on foreign oil, we strengthen our national security. If we lead the world in inventing new technologies, we create thousands of high-paying technology jobs. If we learn to tap clean energy sources, we preserve a clean environment for our families and for future generations. If we remove the burden of high gas prices, American consumers can spend elsewhere and give our economy the boost it needs. This Energy bill does not take anywhere near the advantage that we had in the Senate bill or that we could have had even beyond the Senate bill. I understand it is hard to get an Energy bill passed. We all understand the powers and the force of money in American politics and the lobbying that takes place. But we have a powerful opportunity to make a renewable electricity the standard in the United States. This bill ought to be increasing our electricity supply from renewables up to 20 percent of electricity from wind and solar and geothermal and biomass facilities by 2020. Instead there is nothing. The renewable portfolio standard is a simple mechanism to diversify energy sources, to stabilize electricity prices, to reduce air pollution and other harmful environmental impacts of electricity generation. The fact is, this administration has even let the big old powerplants off the hook by reneging on the new source performance standards so that they don't have to live up to the higher standards as they put new technologies in place. The result is, Americans will have dirtier air than they would have had otherwise. Second, we need to take serious steps to help the domestic auto manufacturers build the cars, trucks, and SUVs of the future. The market for hybrids is set to take off. Over the next 3 years, the number of hybrid models is going to increase to almost 20. By 2012, there could be possibly more than 50 models. These are representative of real potential volume and unbelievable value. If we don't build them, someone else is going to do it. The fact is, others are doing it more effectively and rapidly than we have. The global market for hybrids, by one estimate, could be as much as 4.5 million units by 2013, perhaps $65 billion alone in the United States. I believe we ought to put American ingenuity back into our vehicles. We ought to be encouraging, to a greater degree, the ability to transform that marketplace. That is why any Energy bill that we consider ought to have both manufacturer and consumer incentives that are adequate to help accelerate that transition. This bill doesn't. Third, Congress can't responsibly continue to ignore the global climate change issue. Higher temperatures threaten serious consequences. I met the other day with our top experts from NASA. How many Senators realize that it is now not a question of whether; it is a certainty. Nothing we do today is going to stop this. To show you how far behind the curve we are, it is a certainty that the Arctic ice sheet is going to melt. If the Arctic ice sheet melts completely, that exposes the Greenland sheet. Nobody can tell you with certainty what is going to happen to Greenland. But any policymaker ought to stop and shiver at the prospect that it is a certainty the Arctic ice sheet will melt. The Greenland ice sheet will be exposed. And if it were to melt, with catastrophic consequences, say goodbye to Florida, goodbye to the port of Boston, and New York, and a bunch of other places. That would be a catastrophic event. There is nothing in this bill that tries adequately to deal with that reality. What is going to happen with respect to drought, disease, floods, lost ecosystems? And from sweltering heat to rising seas, global warming effects have already begun. Sit down with the top scientists. Sit down with Nobel Prize winners and listen to them tell you about the certainty of what is already happening, not a matter of scientific speculation. The seas are rising. It is getting warmer. They will tell you what is happening. This bill doesn't deal with it. We tried, on this bill, to pass an economywide cap-and-trade bill, a bill that uses the marketplace to be able to work effectively. Didn't get enough votes. The compromise was, they passed the language that didn't require anything, and they even took out of this bill the language that didn't require anything. This is the most obtuse, head- in-the-sand ostrich policy I have ever seen in my life. A bunch of responsible people in the Senate and House of Representatives, ignoring scientists all across the globe, turning their backs on foreign ministers, trade ministers, environmental ministers, prime ministers, presidents of countries, all of whom have embraced, at political risk, the reality of that science, and only the United States of America stands apart and alone, ignoring that reality. Where is the leadership? Fourth, to ensure that technologies capable of providing clean, secure, and affordable energy become available in the timeframe and on a scale needed, we need to dramatically increase our commitment to research and development. I am in favor of advancing the research on nuclear waste and on third-generation, fourth-generation nuclear capacity. A lot of people in my party are not, a lot of environmentalists aren't. I think it is responsible to do that. But it is not responsible to go rushing headlong with the greatest proportion of technology alternative here, without having dealt with those issues and dealt with the American public in a responsible way with respect to that. I think the bill ought to include provisions to dramatically increase Federal Government funding for new energy research and development, increased incentives for private sector energy research and development, and expanded investment in cooperative international R&D initiatives. It does not. Maybe most important of all, we need to attack our energy crisis with the same intensity that we showed under the leadership of Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman when we undertook the Manhattan Project or, subsequently, when we did the space program and the Apollo program. Our competitors are showing that kind of urgency. Prime Minister Blair has been fighting hard to get the G8 to come together. He had to back off because of American pressure. We pushed backward, not forward. Great Britain wants to do almost 100 percent of its electricity from wind power over the course of the next years. Other countries are moving to 80 or 90 percent goals of biomass for fuels. Not the United States of America, despite so many farmers who are desperately waiting for that marketplace to exist. In Germany, where heating is a huge drain on energy, a new law sets the standard of a house designed to use just 7 liters of oil to heat 1 square meter for a year. A new national campaign in Japan urges replacement of older appliances with new hybrid products as part of their nationwide effort to save energy and fight global warming. In Singapore, air-conditioning is a big drain on energy. So new codes encourage the use of heated blocking window films and hookups to neighborhood cooling systems which chill water overnight. Other countries are way ahead of the United States of America in exploring these possibilities. In Hong Kong, an intelligent elevator system uses computers to minimize unnecessary stops and minimize, therefore, unnecessary use of energy. If these nations can reduce their dependence on foreign oil and invest in advanced energy technology, surely the United States of America can do better than this paltry 16 percent renewables and 10 percent efficiency. Their urgency is more than justified because, frankly, this goes way beyond our economy. Energy is a legitimate and central global security issue. The era when the United States and Japan comprised the bulk of the world's demand for oil is over. Oil consumption from developing Asian nations will more than double in the next 25 years, from 15 million to 32 million barrels a day. We only have 3 percent, as I said earlier. There is no way the United States is going to be part of that bargain. The way the United States can be part of that future is by creating those alternative sources and gaining our independence. Chinese consumption is going to grow from 5 million to nearly 13 million barrels a day. India is going from 2 to 5 million barrels per day. This global race for oil is potentially a devastating, destabilizing force, certainly a challenge to the security of our country. We are going to be back here on the floor of the Senate in a short period of time lamenting that we didn't do more now. Increased American energy dependence further entangles also our Nation in these areas of the world. You look at our troops now. This is not good for our troops. In recent years, U.S. forces had to help protect a pipeline in Colombia. Our military had to train indigenous forces to protect a pipeline in Georgia. We plan to spend $100 million on a special network of police officers and special forces to guard oil facilities around the Caspian Sea and continue to search for bases in Africa so we can protect oil facilities there. Our Navy patrolled tanker routes in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea, and the western Pacific. The reality is that we have to protect oil at risk to our troops and at cost to Americans to protect our way of life because we are not working the way we could to provide an alternative to that. This is a serious issue with real consequences. In the spring of 2004, insurgents attacked an Iraqi oil platform. There was violence against oil workers in Nigeria. The result was depressed global oil output and record high gasoline prices. The United States is now on a course where we are opening a target to terrorists. The more you rely on oil, the more disruptive it becomes to your economy, the more it becomes a target to terror, rather than growing it here at home. If anyone needs an example of how energy dependence can shortchange national security, you can look at the war on terror. Let's assume that oil were to miraculously drop to $30 a barrel over the next 25 years. The United States will send over $3 trillion out of the country, much of it to regimes that don't share our values. Today, America spends these enormous amounts. About $25 billion a year goes to Persian Gulf imports alone. It is bad enough to think that those dollars aren't going to stay here and help grow our economy. But it is worse to consider that they empower, in many cases, some of the most extreme elements in the world to be able to take advantage of that richness. The fact is the madrassas in many of these countries and the deals that have been cut in regimes like Saudi Arabia between those extremists are part of what has provided the recruitment and destabilization with respect to the violent extremists of the world today. We know that al-Qaida has relied on prominent Saudi Arabians for financing. The fact is that the bottom line of this policy is, it works for Saudi Arabia. It works for oil and gas companies. But in the long run, this is not going to be what the American people need or want. Americans deserve better, and they also deserve the truth. We had a debate on the floor of the Senate on an Energy bill, during which we were debating efficiencies. This administration delayed an EPA report that slammed fuel economy. It didn't allow the report to come out until after the bill had passed. Washington failed the American people with respect to an opportunity to provide both the economic, health and security and energy policy that this Nation so desperately needs. My hope is that as much as there are some good things in this bill, the Senate at some point will come back and get the real job done. I yield the floor.