John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to go back and forth. That is the way we have always done it.

Mr. KERRY. Under the order, I have 30, and I intend to use it.

Mr. KERRY. I don't want to be limited to 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. I thought you said limited to 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is vital that we complete action on the National Defense Authorization Act. It is an important piece of legislation that we must pass with all due haste to meet the needs of the men and women of the U.S. military. Defense bills are always serious matters--but this year Congress works against a background of prolonged combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, worrying indicators of a force under strain, and with obligations to care for a new generation of combat veterans and their families. By virtually any measure, the American military is a force under strain. It is a simple statement of fact--and a fact every one of us must acknowledge and address so that this most magnificent military is not irreparably harmed. Just 2 months ago, General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, reported to Congress that the American military is not as ready as it could be to meet new contingencies beyond Iraq and Afghanistan. Units and personnel are facing repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. So-called ``low- density-high-demand'' units and personnel are maxed-out. The Army has a dwindling number of Army Reserve and National Guard personnel available to perform combat support roles such as military police and civil affairs. In recent weeks, two reports--one by the GAO, the other by RAND-- highlighted shortages in the Army Reserve. It is becoming increasingly difficult for the Army Reserve to continue to provide ready forces in the near term due to worsening personnel and equipment shortages. There are three primary causes for these shortages: the practice of not maintaining Army Reserve units with all of the personnel and equipment they need to deploy, personnel policies that limit the number of reservists and the length of time they may be deployed, and a shortage of full-time staff to develop and maintain unit readiness. As of March 2005, the number of Army Reserve eligible for mobilization under current policies had decreased to about 31,000 soldiers, or about 16 percent of Army Reserve personnel. But numbers don't tell the whole story as those still available for mobilization may not have the skills and ranks needed to support ongoing operations. We must all be concerned that the Army Reserve be able to provide forces that are ready and relevant to ongoing operations. But these issues--as serious as they are--will not be addressed by simply rubber-stamping an important piece of legislation. I will vote against cloture because there are too many important amendments that would improve this legislation and help the men and women of the American military and their families. If we do invoke cloture, dozens of amendments that deserve a vote--up or down--would fall away, including amendments to protect the pay of mobilized reservists employed by the Federal Government and to create mandatory funding of veterans healthcare. My own amendments to extend survivor housing benefits beyond the end of the fiscal year, to increase funding for a vital weapons system sought by commanders in Iraq, and to begin the process of improving the GI Bill of Rights would never have received a vote. I urge my colleagues to complete the defense authorization bill as quickly as possible and to consider the amendments which Members have offered.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to submit to the record the following resolution regarding the passing of Junko Cushman. Beloved by all her friends and neighbors, Junko always found time to serve her community. Whether working to bring arts and culture to her community, or improving the quality of healthcare, Junko always showed uncommon passion and determination in her efforts. She discovered very young that the key to a fulfilling life is a life of helping others. Junko's community may be weaker for her loss, but is no doubt stronger for her service. It is my privilege to honor her on the Senate floor today. The resolution follows: Whereas, the passing, at 60, of a distinguished California resident, Junko Cushman, whose good deeds earned her the respect and admiration of her colleagues and the countless individuals whose lives she touched, brought immense sorrow and loss to people throughout the state; and Whereas, although she never sought attention, Junko Cushman's natural sense of style and hands-on commitment to charitable causes were impossible to overlook; and Whereas, a Japanese-born San Diegan, she entertained with international flair, excelled at multicultural floral arrangements, and took a leadership role in the Union of Pan Asian Communities; and Whereas, Mrs. Cushman served as chairwoman of events benefiting the San Diego Museum of Art and the Arthritis Foundation and had been on the boards of the Old Globe Theatre, San Diego Foundation, and Burnham Cancer Institute; and Whereas, Mrs. Cushman dedicated her time and service to San Diego State University's Japanese Cultural Fair in Balboa Park; and Whereas, in 1987, Mrs. Cushman served as Chairwoman of a Union of Pan Asian Communities dinner dance on Harbor Island and, in 1989, she played a similar role for the Arthritis Foundation; and Whereas, Over the years, Mrs. Cushman has shown her strong support for California's political system through her affiliation with the Democratic Party; and Whereas, in 1989, Mrs. Cushman and her husband, Larry, were honored for their community service at a Meals on Wheels dinner dance; and Whereas, born in Nagano, Japan, and raised in Tokyo, Mrs. Cushman graduated from the prominent Tamagawa High School and, at age 19, she moved to Los Angeles, California, where she studied English for two years before returning to Japan; and Whereas, she leaves to mourn her passing and celebrate her legacy her husband; Larry; her brother, Hisato Hara; her stepdaughters, Diane Cushman and Janice Ziegler; her grandson, Zachary; her two granddaughters, Ashley and Sarah; her niece Mari; and her nephew Yasuto; now, therefore, be it Resolved by Assembly Member Juan Vargas, That he expresses his deepest regret at the passing of Junko Cushman, and extends his heartfelt sympathy to her bereaved family and friends.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 15 years ago a Democratic Congress and a Republican President passed the Americans with Disabilities Act, a critical step in our journey toward civil rights for all. The ADA represented Washington at its best--both parties coming together, ignoring the special interests, and passing groundbreaking legislation to help people in dire need. Differences were set aside as we united in common respect for all Americans, regardless of physical, cognitive, or emotional abilities. We made a strong statement of our collective belief that in America, all citizens have the right to look at the future with infinite possibility. And I think we can all agree the ADA has been a remarkable success. On this anniversary, I think it is appropriate to recognize those leaders who took the momentum from decades of struggle that had only led to small legislative advances, and turned it into one of the crowning achievements in civil rights law. My distinguished colleagues Senators Harkin and Kennedy, my former colleague Senator Dole and former President Bush, and organizations like DREDF, CCD, NICL and ADAPT, among others, showed such incredible leadership. And we would not have gotten anywhere if the members of the disabilities community had not set all disparate opinions aside to speak with one voice. Fifteen years after passage of the ADA, we find that the challenge of high unemployment, poverty, poor housing, and limited educational opportunities still plagues people with disabilities in America. If should not be this way. I hope that all of us, who 15 years ago believed that to exclude persons with disabilities from our schools, restaurants, or job force was un-American, are reminded as we celebrate this anniversary that there is still much work left to be done. Today, we must go beyond congratulating all the pioneers in this movement for this extraordinarily special anniversary. We must also reaffirm that the Congress stands ready to be the leading force in protecting and strengthening this law--never undermining it. Let us all commit to redoubling our efforts to serve this important community and this crucial cause.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only small business owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government-- buraucracy. The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, in July of 2002, when this Act was originally introduced, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. As of July 2005, 11 States remain declared drought disasters and 19 States are suffering from severe to extreme drought conditions. Adding insult to injury, in those States where the Agency declares drought disaster, it limits assistance to only farm- related small businesses. Take, for instance, South Carolina. A couple of years ago that entire State had been declared a disaster by the SBA, but the Administration would not help all drought victims. Let met read to you from the declaration: Small businesses located in all 46 counties may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. These are working capital loans to help the business continue to meet its obligations until the business returns to normal conditions. . . . Only small, non-farm agriculture dependent and small agricultural cooperative are eligible to apply for assistance. Nurseries are also eligible for economic injury caused by drought conditions. The SBA has the authority to help all small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2005 would force SBA to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to small business drought victims that need it. Time is of the essence for drought victims, and I am hopeful that Congress will consider passing this legislation soon. This Act has been thoroughly reviewed, passing the committee of jurisdiction three times and the Senate twice, with supporters numbering up to 25, from both sides of the aisle. In addition to approval by the committee of jurisdiction, OMB approved virtually identical legislation in 2003. The bill I am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the Administration, and I see no reason for delay. I thank Senators Snowe and Bond, our current and past chairs, both of whom have been supportive of this legislation each time it was introduced and passed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem for many States in this country, and I rise to re-introduce legislation to help small businesses that need disaster assistance but can't get it through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. You see, the SBA doesn't treat all drought victims the same. The Agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only small business owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government-- buraucracy. The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. However, contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, in July of 2002, when this Act was originally introduced, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. As of July 2005, 11 States remain declared drought disasters and 19 States are suffering from severe to extreme drought conditions. Adding insult to injury, in those States where the Agency declares drought disaster, it limits assistance to only farm- related small businesses. Take, for instance, South Carolina. A couple of years ago that entire State had been declared a disaster by the SBA, but the Administration would not help all drought victims. Let met read to you from the declaration: Small businesses located in all 46 counties may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. These are working capital loans to help the business continue to meet its obligations until the business returns to normal conditions. . . . Only small, non-farm agriculture dependent and small agricultural cooperative are eligible to apply for assistance. Nurseries are also eligible for economic injury caused by drought conditions. The SBA has the authority to help all small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the Agency won't do it. For years the Agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2005 would force SBA to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to small business drought victims that need it. Time is of the essence for drought victims, and I am hopeful that Congress will consider passing this legislation soon. This Act has been thoroughly reviewed, passing the committee of jurisdiction three times and the Senate twice, with supporters numbering up to 25, from both sides of the aisle. In addition to approval by the committee of jurisdiction, OMB approved virtually identical legislation in 2003. The bill I am introducing today includes those changes we worked out with the Administration, and I see no reason for delay. I thank Senators Snowe and Bond, our current and past chairs, both of whom have been supportive of this legislation each time it was introduced and passed. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this year I introduced legislation to strengthen our military and enact a ``Military Family Bill of Rights.'' One piece of that bigger agenda is providing TRICARE eligibility to members of the National Guard and Reserve. Today I have the pleasure of cosponsoring an amendment that would expand the eligibility for TRICARE to members of the Selected Reserve. While this amendment is only a start towards better policies for Americans in uniform and their families, it is also an important step in supporting our troops. ``Supporting the troops'' means paying attention to the needs of our troops in the field and at home; understanding their lives both as warriors fighting for the defense of their country and as parents, brothers and sisters, sons, and daughters struggling for the prosperity and happiness of their families. As many as one in five members of the National Guard and Reserves don't have health insurance. That is bad policy and bad for our national security. When units are mobilized, they count on all their personnel. But when a member of the National Guard or Reserve is mobilized, and unit members fail physicals due to previously undiagnosed or uncorrected health conditions because that servicemember lacked health insurance, it disrupts unit cohesion and affects unit readiness. Under current practice, members of the National Guard and their families are eligible for TRICARE only when mobilized and, in some cases, upon their return from Active Duty. For some, that means they lack continuity of care, having to switch healthcare providers whenever their loved one is mobilized or returns home. This lack of continuity is particularly difficult for individuals with special health care needs, such as pregnant spouses or young children. When we think of supporting our troops, we must remember that we also have to support families. Investing in military families isn't just an act of compassion, it is a smart investment in America's military. Good commanders know that while you may recruit an individual soldier or marine, you ``retain'' a family. Nearly 50 percent of America's servicemembers are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced servicemembers, especially the noncommissioned officers that are the backbone of the Army and Marine Corps, we have to keep faith with their families. If we don't, and those experienced, enlisted leaders begin to leave, America will have a broken, ``hollow'' military. Thus, TRICARE for members of the Select Reserve is not simply a new ``benefit'' but an issue affecting mission readiness. With our military forces stretched as thin as they are due to the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, we need to rely on the Reserves to an even greater extent than in the past. Indeed, at a time when the Guard and Reserve face growing problems in recruiting and retention, extending TRICARE coverage also has the potential to be a great recruiting tool. We have a sacred obligation to keep faith with the men and women of the American military and their families--whether they are on Active Duty, in the National Guard or Reserves, or veterans. Today's amendment is an important step.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am happy to join the Senator from Michigan in sponsoring this amendment. Earlier this year, we offered an identical amendment to the fiscal year 2005 Emergency Supplemental Appropriation Act, which passed the Senate with 75 votes but was inexcusably dropped in conference. We need to rectify that wrong because the death gratuity system created last spring, despite good intentions, sells short people who deserve better: our soldiers and military. The issue is simple: when it comes to our men and women in uniform, how do you draw the line between one death in one circumstance and another death in another circumstance? I don't believe you can. The existing law relies on the combat related special compensation legislation to determine which personnel who die outside of combat zones receive the increased death gratuity. It may seem sufficient, but it is not. Consider the case of Vivianne Wersel. Her husband, LTC Richard M. Wersel, U.S. Marine Corps, served 20 years and 6 months in the Marine Corps. His last overseas assignment was with the Multinational Forces Iraq in Baghdad. He served there as the plans chief for the Civil Military Operations Directorate. In February of this year, just a week after returning home, Lieutenant Colonel Wersel suffered a fatal heart attack lifting weights in the gym at Camp Lejeune, NC. If he had died 1 week earlier lifting weights in Iraq, his family would have been eligible for the increased benefits. Because he died in the United States, his sacrifice isn't properly honored, and his family is left to a greater struggle. This is what the uniformed leaders of the American military were talking about when they testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee earlier this year. It is time we listened to them. Let me remind my colleagues what they said: GEN Michael T. Moseley, U.S. Air Force, said: I believe a death is a death and our servicemen and women should be represented that way. GEN Richard A. Cody, U.S. Army, said: It is about service to this country and I think we need to be very, very careful about making this $100,000 decision based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the side of covering all deaths than try to make the distinction. And ADM John B. Nathman, U.S. Navy, said: This has been about . . . how do we take care of the survivors, the families, and the children. They can't make a distinction; I don't believe we should either. Vivianne Wersel certainly doesn't make that distinction. She and her husband have two wonderful children. They have lived on 10 bases in the last 15 years living the proud but challenging life of a Marine family. They have made sacrifices for this country throughout Colonel Wersel's career--supporting him in his missions wherever that took him. They have missed their father for a long time not simply since his death. They deserve better from us, who they sacrificed to protect. For the survivors of our Nation's fallen heroes, much of life remains, and though no one can ever put a price on a lost loved one, we must be generous in helping them put their lives back together. Current law doesn't work. We can change it. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we should all take a moment today to honor the life and the work of Arthur Fletcher. Considered ``the father of affirmative action,'' he advised four Presidential administrations and never missed an opportunity to advance the interests of underserved people throughout the Nation. Today, Mr. Fletcher is being laid to rest, after a distinguished life of public service. As an affirmative action supporter, Mr. Fletcher identified with Abraham Lincoln's legacy and felt that in order to make the greatest changes he needed to work from inside the political system. He was appointed by President Nixon to be the Assistant Secretary of Wage and Labor Standards. From this position, he developed ``the revised Philadelphia Plan'' which became the blueprint for affirmative action plans, creating a framework for employers to use in hiring. He continued to advise three more presidents: He was the Deputy Urban Affairs Adviser for President Gerald R. Ford, an adviser to President Ronald Reagan, and the Chairman of the Civil Rights Commission between 1990 and 1993. During his service in these administrations, Mr. Fletcher never shied away from addressing the most challenging opposition as he worked to expand equality and opportunity. Mr. Fletcher is probably best known for the phrase, ``a mind is a terrible thing to waste'' which he helped develop while serving as the executive director of the United Negro College Fund, however his influence was more far reaching. For example, Mr. Fletcher personally helped finance the lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education in the landmark Brown v. Board of Education case, which successfully sought to desegregate the Topeka public school system. His interests seemed to know no bounds as he played football for the Los Angeles Rams and then became the first African American player for the Baltimore Colts. He ran for high public office, including President of the United States in 1996, always to advance the virtues of affirmative action. As a lifetime advocate Arthur Fletcher himself was a story of affirmative action, not only working for the advancement of others but blazing a trail for others to follow of hard work and determination. His contributions to American society have benefited millions and raised the lifestyles of African Americans and all traditionally underserved people across our country. His family can take pride in the great strides that our country has made as a result of his hard work. My deepest sympathy goes out to his three children, his many grandchildren, and of course his wife Bernyce Hassan-Fletcher. His legacy lives on in all of us who believe in the struggle for racial and gender equality and who continue to fight for equal opportunity for all. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Maine and Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, in reintroducing the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act. This bill has a long history of bipartisan support in Congress because of the critical assistance it provides to small businesses. Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often are overwhelmed with the task of complying with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from State to State. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. In addition, small business owners are often afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses. One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance, with some 1,000 centers around the country, well- established relationships and visibility within local communities, and the trust of area small businesses. Our bill establishes a 4-year pilot program to award competitive matching grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state. Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities, offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners, and consult with the SBA's independent Office of Advocacy. The legislation will complement, not duplicate, current small business development assistance and expand upon existing regulatory compliance help. The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small-business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses had used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants. The SBA's independent Office of Advocacy estimates that small businesses with fewer than 20 employees--which make up 89 percent of all U.S. businesses--pay nearly $7,000 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. This is nearly 60 percent higher than the cost to larger firms. While all small businesses should be complying with Federal regulations, the Federal Government should also do it's best to ensure that the burden on small businesses is minimized, that small businesses are taken into account when new regulations are drafted, and that unnecessarily burdensome regulations are eliminated. In addition, the government should make sure that small businesses understand the regulations. Often, noncompliance is due to confusion not ill intent. By providing free, private regulatory assistance, we can increase compliance while decreasing the burden on small businesses. Small-business owners have enough on their plates without worrying about complying with confusing regulations. This legislation will decrease the burden on small businesses by helping them cut through government red tape. Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations. The legislation we are introducing today is nearly identical to the Kerry-Ensign legislation introduced last Congress. On the House side, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act, H.R. 230, has been introduced and passed by Congressman John Sweeney of New York in each of the past three Congresses and was just approved by the Small Business Committee yesterday. In 2002, our Senate version passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship but was not taken up by the full Senate. I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us to re-introduce the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from the National Small Business Association, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chair Snowe for her had work and support on this issue. I also want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Bond, Burns, Leahy, Jeffords, Carper, Bingaman, and Rockefeller for their ongoing efforts to pass this important assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my distinguished colleague from Maine and Chair of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Olympia J. Snowe, in reintroducing the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act. This bill has a long history of bipartisan support in Congress because of the critical assistance it provides to small businesses. Small businesses, particularly small businesses with very few employees, often are overwhelmed with the task of complying with Federal regulations, especially when implementation varies for different regions of the country, or from State to State. Many small businesses fail to comply with important and needed labor and environmental regulations not because they want to break the law, but because they are unaware of the actions they need to take to comply. In addition, small business owners are often afraid to seek guidance from Federal agencies for fear of exposing problems at their businesses. One important way to help small businesses comply with Federal regulations is to provide them with free, confidential advice outside of the normal relationship between a small business and a regulatory agency. The Small Business Administration's Small Business Development Centers, SBDCs, are in a unique position to provide this type of assistance, with some 1,000 centers around the country, well- established relationships and visibility within local communities, and the trust of area small businesses. Our bill establishes a 4-year pilot program to award competitive matching grants to 20 selected SBDCs, two from each SBA region, which would allow these SBDCs to provide regulatory compliance assistance to small businesses. The SBA would be authorized to award grants between $150,000 and $300,000, depending on the population of the SBDC's state. Under our legislation, the SBDCs would need to form partnerships with Federal compliance programs, conduct educational and training activities, offer free-of-charge compliance counseling to small business owners, and consult with the SBA's independent Office of Advocacy. The legislation will complement, not duplicate, current small business development assistance and expand upon existing regulatory compliance help. The legislation we are reintroducing today uses only SBA funds and will serve to complement current small-business development assistance as well as existing compliance assistance programs. Versions of this legislation introduced in previous Congresses had used Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, enforcement funds to pay for these grants. The SBA's independent Office of Advocacy estimates that small businesses with fewer than 20 employees--which make up 89 percent of all U.S. businesses--pay nearly $7,000 per employee to comply with Federal regulations. This is nearly 60 percent higher than the cost to larger firms. While all small businesses should be complying with Federal regulations, the Federal Government should also do it's best to ensure that the burden on small businesses is minimized, that small businesses are taken into account when new regulations are drafted, and that unnecessarily burdensome regulations are eliminated. In addition, the government should make sure that small businesses understand the regulations. Often, noncompliance is due to confusion not ill intent. By providing free, private regulatory assistance, we can increase compliance while decreasing the burden on small businesses. Small-business owners have enough on their plates without worrying about complying with confusing regulations. This legislation will decrease the burden on small businesses by helping them cut through government red tape. Small businesses can succeed when it comes to complying with Federal regulations, if provided with the necessary tools and information. The National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act will go a long way toward assisting our Nation's small businesses that want to comply with Federal regulations. The legislation we are introducing today is nearly identical to the Kerry-Ensign legislation introduced last Congress. On the House side, the National Small Business Regulatory Assistance Act, H.R. 230, has been introduced and passed by Congressman John Sweeney of New York in each of the past three Congresses and was just approved by the Small Business Committee yesterday. In 2002, our Senate version passed the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship but was not taken up by the full Senate. I am pleased to say that we have the full support of the Association of Small Business Development Centers, which has been working closely with us to re-introduce the Senate version of this legislation, as well as support from the National Small Business Association, the American Industrial Hygiene Association, and Congressman Sweeney. I want to express my sincere thanks to Chair Snowe for her had work and support on this issue. I also want to thank our cosponsors, Senators Cantwell, Bond, Burns, Leahy, Jeffords, Carper, Bingaman, and Rockefeller for their ongoing efforts to pass this important assistance. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to an organization that has answered the call of duty on behalf of our soldiers and their families for the last 60 years, the Gold Star Wives of America, Inc. On July 19th, representatives of all the Gold Star Wives chapters will gather in Orlando, FL, to commemorate their 60th Anniversary and I ask every American to join me in thanking these citizen soldiers for their tireless work on behalf of military families across this country. While we as a Nation celebrate and honor the service of our soldiers, it is organizations such as the Gold-Star Wives that remind us that every soldier is a sibling, a parent, someone's child, a spouse. They also remind us that our national obligation is not only to the soldier in the field but to the family a fallen soldier leaves behind. Prior to World War II, many military widows and their families did not have a strong voice to advocate on their behalf. All of that changed in New York when 23-year-old Marie Jordan, whose husband Edward died in Germany, collected women's names as they appeared in military obituaries and invited a small group over for coffee. Once together, the assembled widows realized that their concerns were many, that their issues were common amongst many military widows, and that there was not an organization charged with advocating on their behalf. They set about addressing these three concerns and in the process created the Gold Star Wives of America with a simple but profound mission: to honor those who died in the service of their country and assist those left behind. The meetings continued and grew throughout New York. In April of 1945, our country lost the President. From the sorrow of that loss came a member who would have a lasting and dramatic effect on the group's profile, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt. Through Mrs. Roosevelt's weekly columns and public profile, the visibility of the Gold Star Wives increased, as did their impact and membership. That early coffee gathering evolved into their one and only annual fundraiser, a ``Stay- at-Home Tea'' to which members are encouraged to donate amounts as small a $10 and $15. Initially the activities were local, such as arranging camping trips for the children of lost soldiers and volunteering at veterans hospitals. As membership grew so did the scope of the young organization's focus, which soon incorporated organizational support for memorial projects, helping coordinate Veterans and Memorial Days programs and speaking out in public forums on behalf of widowed military wives. And the work continues today. Tiffany Petty, 25, of Inkom, ID, was widowed in December 2003 when her husband, Army PFC Jerrick M. Petty, was killed while guarding a gas station in Iraq. Along with other members of the Gold Star Wives, Tiffany appeared before the Senate and communicated in strong, heartfelt terms the need to increase death benefits for survivors and remove the bureaucratic obstacles grieving families face in accessing benefits. On July 19, the mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters that comprise the membership of the Gold Star Wives will convene in Florida. A central part of this 60th anniversary celebration will be a tribute to the group's founder now known as Marie Jordan Speer. Along with the Massachusetts delegation, I am proud to stand with all of these inspiring women as they pay tribute to a patriot and citizen soldier who has had an immeasurable impact on how this nation treats military families. As a veteran and as an American, I thank Marie Jordan Speer and every member, past and present, of the Gold Star Wives of America for their patriotic service, for their advocacy, and for making sure that this country lives up to its obligation to soldiers long after the battlefield falls quiet and troops come home.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up an amendment numbered 1162.

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the chairman accepting that and I appreciate the efforts of the committee. I know the committee put in additional money, about $200 million, and that is important funding. Again, I restate, we are looking at a $7.3 billion problem. That is a step forward. I am very grateful to the chairman for being willing to try to find this report. I hope the Department itself will respond accordingly to the language which the committee has appropriately put in here to try to get this in scope. We have been talking about this for 4 years now and most people would agree, in the major ports-- California, New Jersey, New York, Miami, various places--this is a major concern. The communities are increasingly feeling ill-equipped to respond appropriately. I thank the Chair for his response. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a rather straightforward amendment, not very complicated in its scope but important in its scope. I offer it together with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine. This is an amendment to require the Department of Homeland Security inspector general to issue a report to the Congress within 90 days detailing the steps which that agency is taking to correct what many people feel is amounting now to a dangerous situation of either oversight or mismanagement. Let me explain that record and why I am concerned about it. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security inspector general issued an alarming report. We all ought to be very grateful to the IG for the issuance of that report. The IG concluded that 4 years after September 11, the administration, and I quote the IG, ``has no assurance that our ports program is protecting the Nation's most critical and vulnerable infrastructure and assets.'' The IG concluded that the program's design hinders its ability to direct enough funding to the most vulnerable ports, that available critical infrastructure information was not used during the application vetting process, that of the $564 million awarded for port security grants since September 11--that is over almost a 4-year period--only $106 million has actually been spent, that 82 out of 86 projects funds for the Office of Domestic Preparedness in 2003 lacked merit, and perhaps the most damaging revelation was in 2003 the Transportation Security Administration, which funded 811 projects, had only one staff member overseeing the entire program. That is a situation, according to the inspector general, that leaves America more vulnerable to attack. I know my colleagues and, I am confident, the President do not want to allow this situation to continue. What is the best thing we can do to avoid that? Obviously, our priorities are reflected in how we choose to spend money and what we do with that. When we passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act in 2002, the Coast Guard estimated then it would cost port authorities, the private sector, and the Government $7.3 billion to implement its requirements. In other words, after the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, which was in direct response to what we learned needed to be done as a result of September 11, we had a private sector and Government estimate of $7.3 billion that needed to be expended in order to put America in the place we ought to be for security. To date, only $564 million has been awarded for port security grants to help port authorities improve security and comply with the law. And of that, the IG report states very clearly only $106 million has actually been spent as of last year. If we put that in perspective, according to the GAO, more funding has been spent on the Capitol Visitor Center than was awarded during the first four rounds of the port security grant program. If we consider that only $106 million out of $7.3 billion that needed to be spent has actually been spent, the reality is we have almost five times the funding going into the Capitol Visitor Center as is going to protect the ports and providing security of our ports in the security program. I think that comparison would surprise a lot of Americans. A lot of Members have supported spending a little bit more in the security for the ports because we believe it is basic to the national defense of our country. We know al-Qaida and other terrorists target transportation systems. We have seen that since September 11 in Madrid and now London. We saw it in 1998 when they bombed the USS Cole as it sat docked at a port in Yemen. We also know millions of containers enter our country each year uninspected. And we are told by the Department of Homeland Security that all of the radiation screening equipment purchased after September 11 will have to be replaced because it is ineffective. If a major U.S. port were to be the victim of some kind of container attack, that attack could take any number of different forms. There was a threat in New York City not long after September 11 which was taken very seriously about the potential of a dirty nuclear bomb. There is obviously the threat of an actual primitive nuclear weapon of some kind being used which, primitive as it might be, could still pack the force of a bomb that was used at Hiroshima. That would threaten anywhere between 50,000 and 1 million American lives. It could blow a $300 million to $1.2 trillion hole in our economy in very short order, not to mention what it would do with respect to the energy crisis or to the larger longer term issue of the overall port security and flow of goods we rely on in our international trade. We would have a global economic disaster. No one can predict in any way that we can set up a fail-safe system. I am not suggesting that. But I do know from the information we have gleaned from any number of people working on this technology that there is a significant advance in the state of the art of technology for large-scale container screening. There are a number of different tracking systems that are available to secure containers at the place of embarkation and guarantee very inexpensively that they have not been jimmied or monkeyed with in the course of transit so that we know we have a secure container that is going from point of embarkation to debarkation. There are any number of things we can do and they are very important to the longer term security of the country and not that expensive in the end. In the Senate, Members have debated previously whether we ought to be dedicating more funding. I understand the votes are not there at this moment to actually do the funding, but I hope the votes would be there to take the IG of Homeland Security seriously. The IG has already suggested the deficiencies that exist now. We ought to be looking to the IG to further help the Senate make a choice about the future. Nearly 4 years after September 11, the administration has yet to complete a national maritime security plan that was due to Congress last year and they have offered no contingency plans to redirect the flow of commerce and keep the economy running in the event there were a terrorist attack at a port. All of this is required by Congress now. Port authorities, shippers, importers, vessel owners, truckers, and other commercial maritime entities have no idea what would be expected of them, what the procedures would be if an attack were to occur. We do not even know which Federal agency would be in charge. The Coast Guard says it will be in charge. The FBI says it is in charge. In short, we are unprepared to do all we can do to detect and prevent and we are unprepared to deal with the reality if it were to occur. Therefore, we understand why the IG was critical of the way this program has been thus far administered. I ask my colleagues this: If we cannot agree that protecting our ports at this point deserves more funding--which many Members believe on its face is obvious it ought to get more than the $106 million that has been spent or the $560 million allocated--but if we cannot agree on that, if we cannot agree it ought to get more funding than the Capitol Visitor Center, at least we ought to be able to agree we ought to be able to find out from the IG how the money could be spent in a way that is not mismanaged and that accomplishes our goals to the best of our ability with the funds we have. Thus far, the Department of Homeland Security has concurred with 11 of the 12 recommendations from the IG, and they have promised reforms. But what we need to know is whether they have been implemented, they are going to be implemented, whether there are further steps we ought to be taking. We would be remiss in our responsibilities of oversight if we did not follow up on the report of the IG detailing what the Department has done to fix the problems. That IG report was released in January. Since then there have been no congressional hearings on the issue, and no formal report has been delivered to Congress. We ought to ask for one. It is important to get this information since the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness, which inherited the program, is going to conduct a fifth round of grants beginning in September. So we go into a fifth round of grants without understanding what the urgency and priorities are according to the goals set out by the Congress itself. My amendment is very simple: It requires the inspector general to issue another report so that Congress knows the exact state of the program now and performs the appropriate level of congressional oversight and helps us to improve our port security. I hope this would be an amendment we could accept. It should not be that controversial and does not provide for the expenditure of money, but provides for congressional oversight and accountability that is so important to doing our job to improve the security of our country.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I offer this amendment together with Senator Lautenberg and Senator Corzine.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. The Senator yielded some back.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is interesting, listening to the Senator from Idaho, who, as he said, came to this decision from a different place than the Senator from North Dakota, and listening to the Senator from North Dakota; both of them have raised issues they tried to get the administration to respond to. I am very sympathetic with the sense they have that the administration just didn't respond to them and really was unwilling to try to accommodate what I think are very reasonable concepts. In May of 2003 I sent a letter to Ambassador Zoellick, asking the administration to delay tabling CAFTA's labor chapter until Congress had an opportunity to consult. I wrote again in October 2003, raising similar concerns. All we got was a very sort of abrupt and short letter that basically never engaged in the kind of discussion that could have benefited all of us so we would not have the kind of divide we have in the Senate and in the country today. During the debate of TPA in 2002, I offered an amendment to allow communities to be able to preserve their health and safety laws which were being challenged under NAFTA. Even now, with a lawsuit pending against the State of California for attempting to protect their drinking water--imagine that. The State of California wants to protect its drinking water and the interests of its citizens. But nevertheless they included the very same provisions that have led to that kind of challenge in CAFTA. In the summer of 2003, I suggested to the administration, in the context of the Chile and Singapore agreements, that the labor standards achieved in those agreements would not be adequate for CAFTA. The reason for that is in Chile, in Singapore, and in Australia--all three agreements which I supported last year--you have capacity for enforcement. You have specificity with respect to the laws on the books that can be enforced. And you have a record of that enforcement. All three of those ingredients--capacity, specificity of law, and record of enforcement--are absent in too many of the countries that are involved in this agreement. We tried to get the Trade Representative to understand that there is an evenhanded way to open a fair agreement to trade but to address those kinds of concerns. Regrettably the labor standards in the Chile and Singapore agreements may be good for those countries, but they should not be applied to CAFTA because of the lack of those three critical ingredients. Even in this last month, as CAFTA was considered in the Senate Finance Committee, I offered an amendment that specifically laid out what the administration could do to fix this agreement. That amendment lost on a tie vote--10 to 10 was the division in the Finance Committee, in no small part a division that was that close because the administration opposed it. So I regret enormously that we are where we are with respect to this agreement at this point in time. I have been in the Senate now for 21 years, and I was one of those who was on the cutting edge and leading the effort in our party to try to make it clear that we ought to trade and that it is important to the United States. I still believe that. I voted for NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, China PNTR, and the many bilateral agreements negotiated by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Last year, while I was not here to vote, I supported the Chile, Singapore, and Australia agreements precisely for the reason that they had a strong ability and a strong record of enforcement, that they had very specific laws, and that they had the capacity to be able to enforce those laws. There are some colleagues who have always opposed each and every one of these trade agreements; and there are some who have been for everything no matter what the balance is. For a number of years now I have been trying to suggest not as a matter of ideology, not as a matter of party label, because I don't think this should have a party label, but as a matter of common sense, I have been trying to suggest that the consensus we have built globally for trade, a consensus built around the notion that, yes, there are some winners and losers, but you do your best to mitigate the impact on losers, that you have sufficient trade adjustment assistance, that you do enough education and training, that you do enough with health care and COBRA payments so people can cover themselves with health care during a transition, that you ease the pain, so to speak. At the same time, as you attempt to maximize the rising of all boats in the tide that we proverbially think about, the rising tide lifts all boats, the fact is, in many countries, it is not lifting all boats. The standard of living does not move at the rate it ought to. The standards for health, safety, labor organizations, or environment do not change in the way they ought to. All of these are quality-of-life issues and value issues, fundamental value issues that ought to be part of our agreements. This is not just basic economics. Particularly when you look at the chart showing the deficits in trade that are growing, it is hard to make a new economic argument about it. The fact is there are larger issues at stake in a trade agreement. For rigid ideological reasons, over the years, we have had tension in the Senate and a fight over whether you embrace some of these other considerations in a trade agreement. Part of the reason we have had such intense reactions to trade meetings around the world, with riots in Seattle and with other demonstrations around the globe, is because of the raging pace of globalization and the discomfort it brings to a whole bunch of people who feel powerless to be able to do something about it. If we, the people who have the power to do something about it, do not choose to do so, we leave people out in the cold and hurting even more. The fact is, the consensus--which has been global, that has helped us to be able to build the trade structure--is fraying. It is fraying not just in the United States but it is fraying in other countries as well. The administration had a unique opportunity in this agreement to try to address some of those concerns. We all understand that opening markets sets in motion economic transition that everyone here knows creates winners and losers at the same time. While you may want to mask some of that impact, the personal impact to people's lives with an unemotional language of economics in the Senate, the fact is if you go to Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, or other parts of the country, it is having a profound impact on communities. It is having a profound impact on the fabric of life in America and on our ability to be able to have a long-term strategy for success. We all know the numbers. Since 2001 we have shed nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs. We have endured 42 consecutive months of economic decline in the manufacturing sector. Fifteen years ago, 20 years ago, 30 percent of America's economic pace was services and 70 percent was manufacturing. Today, it is 30 percent manufacturing and 70 percent services. Many of those services are not the kind of high value-added paying jobs Americans have come to expect. We have long understood if we want a broad consensus for free trade in America, we have to make these trade agreements work for all Americans, not just for the winners, but for the people who temporarily are in the losing position. In the 1990s we began to respond to that. First we looked at the trade agreements themselves and we decided we must protect American workers from unfair competition. American workers should compete on the basis of pay and skill and effort. But it is unfair, fundamentally unfair, to ask Americans to compete against child labor or against habitually depressed wages or habitually unfair working conditions. In the Jordan agreement of 2001, President Clinton had come to understand that in the later part of the 1990s. His administration moved specifically to include these other values within the four corners of a trade agreement. We gave basic labor protections the same standing we give in the protections we provide to corporate America. In other words, we made a new bargain with the American worker in order to hold on to the consensus. The bargain was very simple: We will protect your economic interests, your job from unconscionable competition such as child labor, just as we protect a corporation's economic interests, which are its product, from dishonest competition such as copyright theft. It seemed like a very fair bargain, a very fair form of protection. In CAFTA, we go backwards from that standard. We go backwards from that standard for no explicable reason. Once again, our corporations get the protections they need with an elaborate system of rules, complaints, appeals, compensation, and strict enforcement. But all our workers get is some flowery language with no teeth behind it. We are going to hear that CAFTA has the strongest labor provision of any trade agreement. That is what some folks have been trying to say. Look at this agreement, read the language, and you realize that is once again spin. It comes down to this: There is only one labor provision in CAFTA that is enforceable. It is a nation's commitment to ``enforce its own laws.'' Now, that sounds good, or it sounds like something, but in reality this provision does nothing to protect workers because, No. 1, there is no stipulation whatever as to what those laws are; No. 2, some of those laws are completely inadequate; No. 3, there is no enforcement capacity in some of those countries to enforce even the inadequate laws, if you can understand what they are. There could have been a stipulation as to what they are. There could have been an understanding in the four corners of this agreement as to what standard we would try to reach. Moreover, if the provision does lead to an attempt at enforcement, guess what. The maximum so-called penalty is $15 million. There is a cap. There is no cap on the corporate penalty. But there is a maximum cap. Guess what. It is a so-called penalty because the fine is then returned to the offending country, ostensibly, to be used to fix the problem, but without any real enforcement mechanism to do so. Senator Bingaman will say to the Senate that he has secured an agreement from Trade Administrator Portman that they will put $40 million a year into the enforcement efforts. Again, if you do not have adequate laws and you do not have adequate specificity and you are enforcing in a structure that has a cap on the payment and the payment goes to the country that offended, you are not enforcing the standards of workers. There is another labor provision in CAFTA. It asks a nation to strive to eliminate ``the worst forms of child labor.'' We do not even define what the gradations of the forms of child labor are. Just the worst forms of child labor. There shouldn't be any form of child labor. But we are only going to seek to strive to get rid of the worst forms, sweatshop conditions and other problems. But if a nation fails to do that, we can only consult. In other words, we can talk about ending child labor in a CAFTA country, but we cannot take any action to end child labor in a CAFTA country. That is wrong. That is contrary to the values of our country and to the fundamental values of American workers. Words alone are not going to do anything for kids who are suffering in work sweatshops. They will not do anything for the American workers who lose their jobs as a consequence of being undercut by that level of competition. I ask my colleagues to answer a simple question: Why is there a double standard that we are going back to when we passed an agreement that set a higher standard, and there is no showing as to why that standard hasn't worked, shouldn't work, and shouldn't be part of this agreement? Why do Americans not have the same standing as a corporation? Why don't they have the same standing to end child labor or sweatshop conditions that corporations have to go out and protect copyright or patent theft? Why the double standard that punishes American workers? I share with many of my colleagues a longstanding commitment to the development of the well-being of Central America, but I am concerned that CAFTA is insufficient to provide for steady and balanced economic growth in the region. The administration claims supporting CAFTA is a security issue. I agree, it is a security issue. It is about the economic security of some of the more vulnerable economies in our hemisphere. We have to ensure that a trade agreement with Central American countries grows their economies, protects their workers, helps them preserve their sensitive ecosystems, and, most importantly, encourages balanced and widespread economic growth and opportunity for all of the people in the region. The most troubling aspect of CAFTA is that its shortcomings, particularly the administration's indifference to our own workers, are part of a larger problem. I will speak about that for a minute. What CAFTA underscores is the need for a national policy to make sure America is competitive, the leader in the global economy of today and of tomorrow. The reality is, there is no comprehensive strategy to meet the needs of a fast-changing playing field. What am I talking about? Certainly when we negotiate trade deals with nations that have an insufficient or lackluster labor record, you have to give citizens the same standing to be able to end child labor that corporations have to end copyright and patent theft. It seem to me it is a pro-trade, free-trade policy that builds consensus and which considers all Americans. But it was refused in this agreement. After you have the agreement in place, we need to defend America's interests. This is true of all of our agreements. The administration has to stop giving in to competitors. The Clinton administration brought an average of 11 trade cases to the World Trade Organization per year. This administration has brought a total of 12 cases in the first 4\1/2\ years. The administration also needs--and many colleagues have spoken about this--to take action against China's currency manipulation. We keep hearing about it. People talk about it. And they talk about it. And they talk about it. And they talk about it some more. The Senate has actually voted and gone on record that the administration needs to do something other than talk. But nothing has happened. In the administration's recent dealings with China, according to our trade representative, counterfeiting and piracy in China are at epidemic levels. That piracy costs U.S. companies $20 to $25 billion annually. We are told the problem is getting worse, not better. According to press reports in May, the United States presented the Chinese with a list of modest proposals to curtail intellectual property violations. Modest proposals. We gave them a list. The Chinese rejected the proposal outright. What did the administration do? They did not respond by pressing the Chinese. They did not respond by taking any particular action. Guess what they did. They told United States companies to go file lawsuits in Chinese courts to defend their rights. It is insulting and it is ridiculous. It is not just putting the agreements in place, it is also enforcing them that the American worker is asking for. In addition to that, we have all heard about the Chinese firm recently seeking to purchase Unocal, an American energy company. What many people do not know is that Chinese company borrowed money from the Chinese Government in order to make the bid. It should not come as a surprise since it is 80 percent Government owned. That has upset a lot of people and generated a lot of press. But it ought to concern us even more that we are doing the same thing in the United States in the following way. Since the start of the Bush administration, the Federal Government has borrowed billions of dollars to fund our national debt and cover questionable and, some think, even reckless tax choices in fiscal policy. Billions of dollars have been borrowed from--guess where--none other than the Chinese Government. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 5 minutes off their time.