John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi. Amendments Nos. 333 and 334 En Bloc

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the current amendment be temporarily set aside so we can take up two amendments quickly.

Mr. KERRY. Seven minutes very quickly, and then I am happy to set those aside.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, many of us in the Senate have had the privilege of traveling to Iraq where we have visited some of the most remarkable young men and women our country has produced. We have met with hundreds of American soldiers, airmen, Marines and naval personnel, all of whom are doing a magnificent job under, obviously, very difficult conditions. I support this supplemental bill and for the obvious reasons. The election and increased training and the clarity of a plan that has been put forth and the increased effort of the Iraqis themselves combined provide an important opportunity for the transformation of Iraq. It is obviously vital in these circumstances to make sure our troops have the ability to be safe but to also be able to get the job done. We have always said that. But also I believe we need to do more. Supporting the troops means not just supporting them in the field and in the theaters, but it also means supporting them here at home. It means understanding that their lives, both as warriors fighting for their Nation and as spouses, parents, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters struggling to see that the needs of their families are met-- the fact is that too many military families suffer when duty calls. Thousands of reservists take a very significant pay cut when they are called up. Suddenly, single parents are left to struggle with the bills. One in five members of the National Guard don't have any health insurance at all. That is devastating to their families. It is damaging to troop readiness. I believe that everyone here understands the simple tenet that the Government has to keep faith with our troops. To do that we need to put in place a comprehensive military family bill of rights that puts action behind the promise to support our troops. I understand that the supplemental bill is not the place to ask for the full consideration of that military family bill of rights, so I am not going to propose the entire bill as an amendment here. But I am bringing two amendments to the floor that are broken out of this bill of rights that I believe we could all agree on and which would make an enormous difference in the lives of our soldiers. In agreeing to these, we can take an important step in demonstrating our support for a military family bill of rights which is long overdue. More than a year ago, I proposed increasing the benefits paid to surviving military families to $500,000 through existing insurance benefits and an increase in the death gratuity. I am not alone in this effort. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced legislation to improve these benefits, and with very good reason. Today, families receive only $12,420 to supplement whatever insurance a loved one may have purchased. That $12,420 is completely inadequate. In fact, it is a disgrace. We do right by our fallen police officers and firefighters in America. Their families receive $275,000, and it is time that we did the same for our soldiers. Their survivors' lives remain to be lived, and though no one can ever put a price on the loss of a loved one, it is important for us to be as generous as we can and as realistic as we can as we help people to be able to put their lives back together. I was heartened when the administration embraced a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I am glad the Appropriations Committee has included a benefit increase in this particular bill, but the bill needs to go further and eliminate any distinction between combat and noncombat deaths. This is important for a number of different reasons. First of all, the benefit, as matter of principle, ought to go to any American who loses their life while serving our country, and we shouldn't draw a distinction between that kind of service. The fact is that the uniformed leadership of our military doesn't believe we should, either. GEN Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified on this matter before the Armed Services Committee, and a number of other leaders. Let me share with colleagues. GEN Richard Cody said: It is about service to this country, and I think we need to be very careful about making decisions based upon what type of action. I would rather err on the side of covering all deaths rather than trying to make a distinction. Admiral Nathman said: This has been about how do we take care of the survivors, the families and the children? They can't make a distinction, and I don't think that we should either. GEN Michael Moseley of the Air Force said: I believe a death is a death and our service men and women should not be represented that way. --i.e, they shouldn't be distinguished as to where it took place. If you are a pilot flying in the Navy off an aircraft carrier and you are not in combat and you have a catapult failure and die, that family faces the same crisis as a family of somebody who is shot down. We need to understand that. I'm glad the bill addresses that situation, but there are other circumstances it does not. GEN William Nyland of the Marine Corps said: I think we need to understand that before we put any distinctions on the great services of these wonderful men and women, they are all performing magnificently. I think we have to be careful about drawing any distinctions. The amendment I offer today with Senators Pryor and Obama expands this benefit to every member of the Armed Forces who dies on active duty. I have a second amendment at the desk to help military families lessen the disruption that a death brings to the family. At the present time, the survivors of those killed in action have to move out of military housing in 180 days. But for those with young children in school, that becomes entirely disruptive often with respect to the school district kids are able to go to, and it is a very difficult burden in many cases for widows and widowers to have to try to confront all of the difficulties of that transition, including the efforts of finding housing. The 180 days may mean starting a school year in one State and finishing it in another. I don't believe that is a message we ought to be extending to the families of those who give their lives in service to our country. Given all of the disruption the loss of a parent brings to their lives, I propose allowing survivors the option to keep their housing for a whole year as they deal with the countless other challenges. It may seem like a small change, but I have heard from enough different folks on active duty in the military about the significance of this particular need, and it can make a huge difference for a family who is struggling with the loss of a father or a mother. Investing in our military families is not just appropriating the money for the equipment or the latest technology for the deployment itself, it is investing in the families themselves. And it is not as 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 whole family. That is the way we ought to look at our policies. Nearly 50 percent of America's service members are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, particularly after we have invested millions of dollars in their training, then it is important--especially for the noncommissioned officers who are the backbone of the military--that we keep faith with their families. If we don't, and those experienced enlisted leaders begin to leave, we as a nation are weakened. The two amendments I have proposed today are the beginning of a larger effort to do right by our military families. I believe it is a strong beginning. By joining measures to take care of military families at home with legislation to take care of those remarkable young men and women serving abroad, we are going to take a firm step toward putting meaning behind the promise to support our troops. I hope these amendments are agreed to. I yield to the Senator from Idaho.

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

Mr. KERRY. Seven minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 234

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on January 20, 2005, President Bush said in his Inaugural speech, ``We will widen the ownership of homes and businesses. . . .'' Two weeks later he turned around and submitted a budget that cut funding for the only agency dedicated to cultivating small business ownership in this country, the Small Business Administration. How much did he cut? 20 percent. This is nothing new. The President's track record is even worse. Since President Bush took office in 2001, he has reduced small business resources available through the SBA by 36 percent, the most of any government agency. You may not think the SBA is important, but, last year alone, through the SBA, more than 88,000 small businesses in this country got loans and venture capital, totaling more than $21 billion. A lot more than that, 1.5 million, turned to the SBA and its partners last year for management counseling so that they could start a business, keep their doors open, or expand their business. Think of the SBA next time you get ice cream from Ben & Jerry's, see a mother with a ``boppy'' baby pillow, take a road trip and see a Winnebago, send a package Federal Express, type on an Apple computer, or swing a Callaway golf club. All these companies were helped by the SBA. Where would these companies have been when they were shut out from financing if the SBA had not existed? Imagine the void in our economy without the taxes they generate and all the people without jobs if those companies didn't exist. SBA more than pays for itself. The SBA is a good return on the investment for our country. As my colleague from Maine, Senator Snowe, pointed out at our recent hearing on the SBA's fiscal year 2006 budget, the SBA's budget represents less than 3/100ths of a percent of all Federal spending. And a lot of that funding for the SBA supports emergency loans that help families and businesses when disaster strikes. We are all for fiscal responsibility, but cutting this resource that is so important to our economy is not responsible. Instead of weakening this resource, we should be maximizing it to leverage more businesses and creating more jobs. Evidently my colleagues agree because tonight they agreed unanimously to adopt a bi-partisan amendment to restore $78 million to the SBA's budget for fiscal year 2006. Senator Snowe and I both had our own amendments, but in the end we joined together so that we could get a win for small business. I thank the Chair for her cooperation and leadership. My amendment would have restored $139 million to the SBA, including $42 million in fee relief for borrowers and lenders in the 7(a) Loan Guarantee program; $30 million for microloans and $20 million for microloan technical assistance; $5 million for PRIME; $24 million to restore funding New Markets Venture Capital that was unfairly and unwisely rescinded; $3.6 million for 7(j) contracting assistance to disadvantage small businesses; $2 million for Native American Outreach; $109 million for Small Business Development Centers; a combined $4 million for SBIR FAST and Rural Outreach; $7 million for SCORE; $5 million for the U.S. Export Assistance Centers; $2 million for Veterans Business Outreach; $16.5 million for Women's Business Centers; and $6.5 million for 65 procurement center representatives. That would have raised SBA's funding to $732 million, still far less than the $900 million provided to the SBA 5 years ago. It was a responsible and reasonable increase. Nevertheless, to get things done, we must reach across the aisle and work together. So, as I said earlier, I joined my colleague of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Chair Snowe, to pass Senate amendment No. 216. It did not go as far as I would have liked, but it is still a big step in the right direction. As part of the compromise, Senator Snowe agreed to include $5 million for the PRIME micro business program. The Snowe-Kerry compromise includes: $15 million for Microloan Technical Assistance, which the President recommended terminating; $1.91 million to fund $20 million in microloans, which the President recommended terminating; $5 million for the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs, PRIME, which the President recommended terminating, $3 million for the Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, FAST Program, which the President recommended terminating; $1 million for the SBIR Rural Outreach Program, which the President recommended terminating; $21 million for Small Business Development Centers, increasing funding to $109 million overall; $10 million to fund procurement center representatives, PCRs, in order to hire 100 new representatives; $7.7 million for the HUBZone program, increasing funding to $10 million; $4.5 million for the Women's Business Centers Program, increasing funding to $16.5 million; $3.5 million for U.S. Export Assistance Centers, increasing funding to $5 million; $2 million for the SCORE program, increasing funding to $7 million; $750,000 for Veterans Outreach, increasing funding to $1.5 million; and $500,000 for the 7(j) contracting assistance program, increasing funding to $2.5 million. These amounts are important to include in the Record so that the public knows our intentions. I thank my colleagues, Senators Snowe, Conrad, and Gregg, for their help and also their staffs. In advance, I ask my colleagues on the appropriations committee to match our requests. amendment no. 169

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator. If I could also ask him one further question, according to the expectations of drilling, the time it will take and when revenues would flow to the United States, there will be no revenue that will flow from this legislation that will reduce the deficit; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. This is not a deficit reduction plan. That is the fundamental choice here. For those colleagues who are wavering about this, who wonder about it, this is a precedent. Some people around here may take these precedents casually and the moment may seem very opportune. What goes around comes around. Someday these folks over here may be in the minority and they will want the rules played by properly. That is really what is at stake, not just the issue of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge but how the Senate is living up to its own standards and its own rules. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Cantwell for her leadership. I regret we are here at this time on the budget talking about a major legislative issue, a major energy policy issue which is being approached through the backdoor. This is the equivalent of the ``nuclear option'' that is being talked about with respect to judges. This is a ``nuclear option'' on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. You cannot drill, you cannot have oil exploration and preserve a refuge, nor even a wilderness. The oil companies themselves have said that. They have made it crystal clear. ConocoPhillips pulled out the other day and said they do not want to drill in Alaska. BP does not want to drill in Alaska. And these companies have had the courage to admit publicly that wilderness and drilling simply do not coexist. But because the votes do not exist to do this through the proper channels of the Senate, there is a new process being put in place to do this on the budget. It is symptomatic of what is happening in the Congress. The Ethics Committee in the House is importuning to change the rules for Congressman Tom DeLay. Now they are talking about changing the rules for how to get judges. They do not like the rules; change them. This does not belong in the budget. It belongs in a debate on the energy policy of the United States. But even on the merits, every single argument that has been made about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge fails to withstand scrutiny. We have heard that drilling in the refuge can be done in an environmentally friendly manner. But even the administration's own reports, the National Academy of Sciences, and others, all show that is not true. We have heard that drilling in the refuge will reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard that drilling in the refuge is going to bring gas prices down at the pump. We have even heard that drilling in the refuge belongs in the national budget because of the revenues from the lease sales. We have heard it is the only available location to look for new oil, notwithstanding that the largest unexplored and as yet unexploited area of oil for the United States is in the offshore gulf, deepwater drilling. We have heard the oil industry is eager to do this even though oil industry executives tell you otherwise in private, and several major companies in public have pulled out of the effort. We say here that less than 1 percent will be affected and only 2,000 acres is going to be the footprint. Yet there is nothing containing that 2,000 acres into one contiguous area. The fact is, that 1.5 million acres will be opened and you could have 20 different sites or 40 different sites of individual drilling. The maps show the roads, the gravel pits, the gravel roads, and other needs of airport, and so forth, to service those particular areas. I would think most of my colleagues would understand that by definition wilderness and an industrial zone do not coincide. By definition they cannot occupy the same space. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration first recognized the extraordinary wilderness value of the area and it was established to provide a unique wildlife landscape. Building a massive oilfield, no matter how you describe this imprint--we do not have time, unfortunately, to go into great detail, but every description of how this would actually be done defies the notion that this is going to be contained to an area the size of Dulles Airport. Oil companies want you to think whatever oil may be found in the refuge is in one compact area. But if you go look at the North Slope oilfields west of the Arctic Refuge, that development sprawls over an extraordinarily large area. It stretches across the Coastal Plain. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, potential oil under the Coastal Plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir but it is spread across the Coastal Plain in many small deposits. To produce oil from this vast area requires a network of pipelines. Roads will be built. And that will change the habitat of the entire Coastal Plain. Now, I acknowledge there is new technology. I know we have made progress with respect to horizontal drilling. We all understand that. And it is more efficient. And, yes, it is less harmful than we have been in the past. But the advantages are extraordinarily exaggerated, particularly with respect to what will happen to the imprint in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. Even new technology such as directional drilling does irrevocable damage. Permanent gravel roads, busy airports are still used for access to production wells that are scattered across more than a million acres of coastal plain. And the entire complex, according to the analyses made by independent groups, will produce more pollution than the city of Washington itself. No matter how well done, oil development has significant and lasting impacts on the environment. The industry itself has said this. British Petroleum has said: We can't develop fields and keep wilderness. And if the facts and the frank admission of an oil company are not enough, colleagues ought to read the National Academy of Sciences study. They should read the Department of Interior study and others who have all come to the same conclusion. In addition, let me point out that every onshore oilfield today on Alaska's North Slope has permanent gravel roads, every single one, even the original Alpine field promoted to this day as a roadless development. I read Secretary Horton's article in the New York Times on the weekend talking about roadless development. It isn't roadless. It has a road connecting its drill sites from the time it began pumping crude oil in the year 2000. In December of 2004, a new road into the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, and others, connected the initial oilfield pump to 33 miles of Alpine roads, and BLM predicted 122 more miles are going to be needed for the next phase of Alpine expansion. Even today this promotion of ``roadless'' is fictitious. It is not going to happen. The roadless concept has not been abandoned. This is what the Bureau of Land Management says: The roadless concept has not been abandoned. Roadless development never meant no roads, only that the construction of permanent roads would be minimized. How many times do the American people have to listen to clear skies that aren't clear, healthy forests that are not healthy, and now roadless rules that are not roadless? The fact is, this is going to be destructive. It changes wilderness forever. What about dependence? We hear this is going to change America's dependence on oil in the world. Go talk to anybody on Wall Street who deals with oil. Go talk to any of the people who trade oil prices, crude barrels. The fact is that this is not going to have any impact. Ten years from now at the peak year, you may change the percentage of American dependency from 62 to 60 percent. The United States only has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. Nothing we could do in Alaska will affect the long-term security of the United States. The only thing that will do that is to recognize we need to move to alternative, renewable, different forms of fuel. The effort of the Senate should not be to destroy a wilderness area. The effort of the Senate ought to be to accelerate that research and development in America. Because with 3 percent of the oil reserves of the world in our hands, including Alaska, you can't drill your way out of America's predicament, you have to invent your way out of it. And that is not what this bill seeks to do. It is a drilling solution. It is a drilling solution with extraordinarily negative consequences. The fact is, the price of oil will not drop. The price of energy will not drop. The price of gasoline will not drop. And one of the reasons why is that China, with its 1.2 billion people, and India, with its 1.- plus billion people, are all increasing their cars on the roads, increasing their development. That is raising the demand curve to a point that nothing the United States does is going to accelerate our production of oil sufficiently to have an impact. May I have an additional 2 minutes?

Mr. KERRY. We should not take the energy policy of the United States and dump it into a tiny debate on the budget for a backdoor effort to find 50 votes-plus in order to do what has traditionally been done according to the rules of the Senate. This is an abuse of power. It is also an abuse of common sense. It will result in a policy that is against the will of the vast majority of the American people. Once again, special interest effort is defeating the desires of the American people to preserve wilderness and preserve something we have preserved to this date for future generations.

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

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I would like to take 1 minute to say something about what we heard, because the Senator from Virginia tried to minimize the impact of what would happen out there. Let me read what happened from the Clean Air Act Violations in 2004: The Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation imposed an $80,000 civil penalty on ConocoPhillips for Clean Air Act violations in the Alpine oil field. In addition, over 2.3 million gallons of drilling muds--toxic, manmade fluids pumped into wells--disappeared into the Colville River in 1998. The following year, 24,654 gallons of hazardous drilling fluids spilled at the Colville River pipeline crossing. Oil industry activities for the Alpine fields caused 170 spills, totaling 36,000 gallons of hazardous substances by 2004, and that is according to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation. So this is not without harm. I stand by what I said about this being a violation of the rules, going outside the rules. I ask the Senator from North Dakota this, as he is a budget expert, respected by everybody in the Senate on the subject of the budget. The reconciliation process was put into place not to permit legislation for something that has been voted on as a matter of energy policy for years but for deficit reduction. This is not deficit reduction. I ask the Senator from North Dakota if that is not correct, that under the budget reconciliation rules, reconciliation is for the purpose of deficit reduction?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly believe that reform of our bankruptcy laws is necessary. Too often, bankruptcy is used as an economic tool to avoid responsibility for unsound decisions and reckless spending. Last year Americans paid interest on about $690 billion in revolving debt. Most of that debt is credit card debt. According to a Consumer Federation of America study, the average household carries between $10,000 and $12,000 in credit card debt and has nine credit cards. Consumers pay an average interest rate of 12.4 percent or approximately $85 billion annually in credit card debt interest. Let me point out that during both the 105th and 106th Congress, I supported legislation to reform bankruptcy laws and end the abuse of the system. However, I am unable to support the Bankruptcy Reform Act before us today because I believe it is unfair and unbalanced, does far too little to help consumers and curb creditor abuses, and includes an inflexible ``means test'' that will harm many debtors who are genuinely in need of the protections and the ``fresh start'' that bankruptcy is intended to provide. The Bankruptcy Code currently offers two alternatives for individuals: chapter 7, under which a debtor's assets are sold and the proceeds are divided among creditors, and chapter 13, under which debtors who have a regular income develop a repayment plan for a portion of the debt. In many cases, debtors filing under chapter 13 repay a greater proportion of their debt than those filing under chapter 7. The Bankruptcy Reform bill creates a ``means test'' that will make it more difficult for individuals earning above the median income level to erase debts under chapter 7, forcing them to file under chapter 13, which would require them to repay a greater portion of their debt. I believe that those who can afford to repay a greater portion of their debts during the bankruptcy process should be required to do so. A narrowly targeted reform bill designed to reduce abuse of the system would provide bankruptcy judges with the discretion to dismiss or convert a case to chapter 7, but would not mandate it. It would have provided creditors the opportunity to ask for a dismissal or conversion without putting the burden on every filer to prove that he or she deserves the protections of chapter 7. However, the ``means test'' included in the bill is inflexible, and it provides no room for a bankruptcy judge to determine whether the circumstances that led to the debtor's financial situation warrant treatment under chapter 7. A parent with a sick child bankrupted by medical bills is treated the same way as a reckless spender who ran up debt on luxury items. That's simply not right. Again and again, Senators offered amendments that sought to increase the flexibility of the ``means test'' and offered other changes to improve many aspects of this legislation. Unfortunately, in almost every case, these amendments were defeated. The Senate voted against giving any relief to families forced into bankruptcy by devastating health care costs. One million men and women each year turn to bankruptcy protections in the aftermath of a serious medical problem--and three-quarters of them have health insurance. Senator Kennedy offered amendments to exempt from the means test debtors who have incurred large medical expenses and other reasonable considerations. Both his amendments were defeated. The Senate voted against relief for children caught up in their parents' bankruptcy. And it voted against relief to help military families who are struggling with the burdens in Iraq and around the world. The Senate defeated critical consumer protections that would simply give consumers more information and might help end some of the abusive and deceptive practices of some credit card companies. The industry pushes out an incredible 5 billion solicitations every year. Under current regulations companies can change interest rates at almost any time. They market aggressively and, I believe for some, deceptively. Only last year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued an advisory letter warning national banks that engaged in deceptive credit card marketing and account management practices that they would face compliance and reputation risks. Remarkably the bill does protect the wealthiest Americans by allowing them to continue hiding their assets from creditors during bankruptcy and never making good on their debt. Senator Schumer offered an amendment to eliminate and end this abuse, and it was defeated. And it does not stop corporate executives from looting their companies and leaving workers, stockholders, and creditors holding the bag. How can we target middle-class families and ignore the wealthiest Americans as they hide their assets? This bill is needlessly punitive to families. It is as if we have gone out of our way to harm and not help them. For example, when a debtor receives a bankruptcy discharge, the legislation sets up new classes of nondischargeable debt that will compete for payment along with child and family support. Senator Dodd offered an amendment to enable parents to better meet the needs of their children during bankruptcy. Unfortunately, it was defeated. The credit card companies beat the kids on that vote. This bill is not only detrimental to consumers, but it also hurts our small businesses. This effort to reform our bankruptcy laws will make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to start a small business and imposes additional regulations and reporting requirements on small businesses who file for bankruptcy. I believe we must do everything possible to ensure the viability of small businesses and to assist in fostering entrepreneurship in our economy. Regulatory and procedural burdens should be lowered for small business wherever possible. However, the bill fails to meet this challenge. Instead, this legislation promotes additional red tape and a government bureaucracy. It imposes new technical and burdensome reporting requirements that are more stringent on small businesses that file for bankruptcy than they are on big business. Further, the bill will provide creditors with greatly enhanced powers to force small businesses to liquidate their assets. Any big business would have difficulty complying with these new burdensome reporting requirements. But think of the difficulties an entrepreneur or a mom-and-pop grocery store will have in complying with this dizzying array of new and complex requirements. These small businesses are the most likely to need, but least likely to be able to afford, the assistance of a lawyer or an accountant to comply with these new requirements. I cosponsored an amendment offered by Senator Feingold to strike many of the small business provisions in the bill because they would increase reporting requirements on small businesses and make it easier for creditors to force liquidations of small business during the bankruptcy process. Unfortunately, that amendment was not adopted. I am pleased that an amendment sponsored by Senator Collins and myself which will extend chapter 12 bankruptcy protections to our family fishermen, has been included in the bill. The small, family- owned fishing businesses are in serious trouble. We are making progress in rebuilding stocks; however, the cost of this progress has been carried by fishermen working Georges Bank and the Gulf of Maine. The Collins-Kerry amendment will help ensure that fishermen have the flexibility under chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code to wait out the rebuilding of our commercial fish stocks without back tracking on our conservation gains to date. It will help preserve the rich New England fishing heritage in Massachusetts. Despite some provisions, which I do believe improve the system, overall this bill does not provide bankruptcy reform. Inexcusably, this bill helps creditors without helping consumers. It will let the very rich continue to hide money in homes and trusts. It gives no relief to families hit by medical bills or other financial hardship. It even puts credit card companies ahead of children when debt is allocated to creditors. I will vote no.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to honor the work, dedication and career of Patricia R. Forbes, a champion for this Nation's small businesses. In just a few days, Patty will be retiring and my office will be losing a truly superb staff member. I cannot think of many people who have contributed as selflessly and as competently in a wonderfully bipartisan fashion as she has. Prior to joining my staff, Patty served 11 years at the Small Business Administration and spent 4 years directing the staff of then- chair of the Senate Small Business Committee, Senator Dale Bumpers from Arkansas. During Senator Bumpers' chairmanship, Patty served as his majority counsel and later as his deputy staff director and counsel. In her tenure as my staff director and chief counsel on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, she has proven to be an invaluable asset to me and the committee. Patty joined my staff shortly after I became the chair of the Small Business Committee in 1997. Whether it has been developing and implementing an effective small business legislative agenda, preparing legislation, ensuring that adequate appropriations are directed to small business initiatives, preparing hearings, correspondence or speeches, Patty has been an exemplary leader to the staff of the Small Business Committee. Her ability to craft and negotiate meaningful and responsible legislation affecting SBA's programs and the Nation's small businesses has been a driving force behind the bipartisanship and effectiveness of this committee. Senators on both sides of the aisle have grown to respect her expertise, her commitment to small businesses, and her unfailing devotion to her work. During her career, Patty Forbes has made a significant impact on the lives of millions of entrepreneurs. For 13 years, Patty worked in the Senate fighting to provide small businesses greater access to capital, Government contracts, business counseling and training opportunities, tax relief and a plethora of other items that help this Nation's economy grow and help individuals reach for the American dream. I, along with the entire small business community, have been truly lucky to have had her service over the years. Patty Forbes is leaving behind a legacy of commitment and capability that has helped many entrepreneurs turn their vision into reality. She can take pride in the work she has done for me, the U.S Senate, and this Nation. Patty Forbes will truly be missed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I recently returned from Iraq where I am proud to report that the men and women of the American military continue to perform magnificently. They are the best of America, and we owe them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude. Today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen our military and enact a ``Military Family Bill of Rights.'' My hope is that Congress will act quickly to build the military ready to meet the challenges of this century. That requires a larger Army, a larger Marine Corps, and better policies for Americans in uniform and their families. We must begin by building a military sized and shaped for the challenges of the future. The military today, in particular the Army and the Marine Corps, is too small for the missions it faces. The evidence is everywhere. In the past, the Army gave units 2 years to reset, re-train, and prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division is headed back to Iraq after only one year. The 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry Divisions are headed back later this year after less than 2 years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle of its second deployment to Iraq. Even with this timetable, we have made ends meet only through large contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the next rotation of U.S. forces, we are running out of Guard and Reserve units to call on because they've already been deployed. Fourteen of the National Guard's 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their mid-40s to their late 60s. The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are ``rapidly degenerating into a broken force''--and cautioned that at this rate we will not be able to meet the needs of ``future missions.'' The war on terror--which we know requires a comprehensive approach-- will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they occur. Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American military power, including the ``Air War'' in Kosovo, has required a sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security and stability. There's no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking. The CIA's internal think-tank, the National Intelligence Council, recently drew an important conclusion about conflict over the next 15 years: ``Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in certain regions.'' That's a warning about the danger of failed states--and this should be a wake-up call for American strategy. Failed states can become havens for terrorists. It was a failed state in Afghanistan that provided a training ground for al-Qaida. It was a failed state where al-Qaida made its plans, grew its forces, and emerged to threaten our national security. We need a comprehensive foreign policy strategy to deal with failed states, but we must also have a military ready to act if necessary. For the foreseeable future, the United States will need a larger ground force. Failure to build one now will only diminish our national security in the future. The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing Army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace or secure a failed state. Those missions require an investment in the men and women of the American military--to expand their number, and to increase the number of forces that specialize in certain skills. To meet these needs, this legislation will expand the Active Duty Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 10,000 personnel. The men and women of the American military are sustained by the bonds they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw from home--from their families, their spouses, their children, their parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals nor parades--giving everything they can to the men and women they love, men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And so must we--with a new commitment to smarter defense policies, like those I outlined earlier, and better care for military families. So the legislation I offer today also includes a Military Family Bill of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law, to provide assistance to the families of the American military. Investing in military families isn't just an act of compassion--it's 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 service members are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, especially the non-commissioned 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. We can begin by increasing the financial support military families receive. We can help them meet the increased expenses every military family faces when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers make up the difference in lost wages. We should reward those patriotic business leaders. And since small businesses don't have the workforces that make it possible to spread such costs, we should offer a Small Business Tax Credit to those who make up the difference between a reservist's civilian and military pay. This legislation would also establish Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Grants to buttress existing loan programs that help small-businesses survive when a vital employee, or even the owner, is mobilized. It also creates the Reservists Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Task Force to help small businesses prepare for and cope with the mobilization of reservist-employees and owners. For all service members, this legislation permits penalty free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, such as increased child-care and other costs. 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 because they haven't seen a doctor in 2 years, that's bad for readiness and that's bad for unit effectiveness. As part of the Military Family Bill of Rights, we will extend military health insurance eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not. One of the unfortunate truths about war is that it takes lives--and mostly young lives. For their survivors, much of life remains, and we must be generous in our efforts to help them put their lives back together. Almost a year ago, I proposed increasing the military's death benefit to $250,000. When combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, a family would receive $500,000 when a loved-one dies in the service of our nation. No one can ever put a price on a life, but we ought to do what we can to help families coping with the worst of news. The President recently embraced a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I'm glad he has joined this effort. Our generosity must not stop there. At present, survivors of those killed in action have 180 days to move out of military housing. But for those with young children in school, 180 days may mean starting a school year in one State, and finishing it in another. With all the disruption the loss of a parent will bring to their lives, survivors should have the flexibility to stay in their homes for one year after the death of a service member. It's the least we can do for those who have paid the ultimate price. But let's be honest: No piece of legislation will ever anticipate all the needs of America's military families. Someone will always fall through the cracks. And the legislation I intend to offer will try to fix that. Take the case of Jay Briseno. Jay was wounded in Iraq and left paralyzed from the neck down. The law authorizes the VA to provide $11,000 to modify a disabled veteran's vehicle, but it doesn't provide the resources a family needs to buy the specially out-fitted vehicle Jay needed. In his case, a generous member of the community donated the van the Briseno's now use to drive Jay to doctors appointments and hospital visits. And we are all grateful for that act of generosity. But no family should ever have to be so dependent on charity to meet a basic need. Americans will do everything in our power to help military families. But not all Americans can afford to buy modified minivans for wounded veterans, and not all military families have the same needs. So as part of my Military Family Bill of Rights, we will establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Every American who pays taxes will be able to contribute by checking a box on their income tax returns. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance our presidential elections on their tax forms, we should give them this opportunity to say thank you to our troops. The program will meet the needs we can't expect with the flexibility and responsiveness our service members, veterans, and their families deserve. Supporting military families must also extend beyond service in uniform--with programs across government to help with jobs, VA benefits, healthcare, and education. Veterans possess great leadership and technical skills, but they often lack the financial resources to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. So the legislation I introduce today will create a new program, administered by the Small Business Administration, to provide very-low interest loans, up to $100,000, to help veterans start new small businesses. But in this time of war, we have another obligation to meet the needs of those suffering with the experience of war. The Pentagon believes that as many as 100,000 new combat veterans across the country will need some level of mental health care. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported as many as 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Fewer than 40 percent of those sought help. Military officials and mental health providers predict that up to 30 percent of returning soldiers will require psychiatric services associated with their experience in war. Through July of last year, 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries--and 20 percent of those claims were for psychological conditions. These are levels not seen since the Vietnam War. Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive. Soldiers and Marines returning from war want to go home. They don't want to do anything that could jeopardize their homecoming. That's what happened to Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Reservist from Belchertown, MA. When he was leaving Iraq, his first instinct was to report traumatic memories of things he had seen in the war. But someone told him it might delay his return home, so Jeff kept quiet. But the safety, security, and joy of homecoming eluded Jeff. Haunted by the war and what he had seen, he began to drink heavily. He was plagued by recurring nightmares, and began talking about suicide. Last summer, Jeff took his own life. Jeff's story is a preventable tragedy, and a call to action. As part of the legislation I plan, keeping faith with Jeff's family who have become committed advocates in his memory, we will expand PTSD programs within the VA and require outreach efforts to find the veterans who need the care. Our obligation is 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. Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Each of us can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares. We owe them not just thanks and best wishes, but action here in Congress. In today's ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to lose.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I recently returned from Iraq where I am proud to report that the men and women of the American military continue to perform magnificently. They are the best of America, and we owe them and their families a special debt of honor and gratitude. Today, I am introducing legislation to strengthen our military and enact a ``Military Family Bill of Rights.'' My hope is that Congress will act quickly to build the military ready to meet the challenges of this century. That requires a larger Army, a larger Marine Corps, and better policies for Americans in uniform and their families. We must begin by building a military sized and shaped for the challenges of the future. The military today, in particular the Army and the Marine Corps, is too small for the missions it faces. The evidence is everywhere. In the past, the Army gave units 2 years to reset, re-train, and prepare between combat deployments. Instead the 3rd Infantry Division is headed back to Iraq after only one year. The 101st Airborne and the 4th Infantry Divisions are headed back later this year after less than 2 years. The First Marine Expeditionary Force is already in the middle of its second deployment to Iraq. Even with this timetable, we have made ends meet only through large contributions from the National Guard and Reserve. But in planning the next rotation of U.S. forces, we are running out of Guard and Reserve units to call on because they've already been deployed. Fourteen of the National Guard's 15 most combat-ready units are either in Iraq now, recently demobilized, or on alert for duty in the coming year. Of the 205,000 Army Reservists, only about 37,000 remain available for deployment for the types of missions needed in Iraq. Last year the Army dipped into the Individual Ready Reserve. More recently, the Army has even begun to call back military retirees, ranging in age from their mid-40s to their late 60s. The situation is so grave that Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the Army Reserve, recently warned that the reserves are ``rapidly degenerating into a broken force''--and cautioned that at this rate we will not be able to meet the needs of ``future missions.'' The war on terror--which we know requires a comprehensive approach-- will have a military component. Surprises happen and our armed forces must be ready to meet those challenges, wherever and whenever they occur. Since the end of the Cold War, every major commitment of American military power, including the ``Air War'' in Kosovo, has required a sizeable commitment of American ground forces, at the very least to provide post-conflict security and stability. There's no technological substitute for boots on the ground, and we must always plan for the worst, so we never expose our troops to the unintended consequences of wishful thinking. The CIA's internal think-tank, the National Intelligence Council, recently drew an important conclusion about conflict over the next 15 years: ``Weak governments, lagging economies, religious extremism, and youth bulges will align to create a perfect storm for internal conflict in certain regions.'' That's a warning about the danger of failed states--and this should be a wake-up call for American strategy. Failed states can become havens for terrorists. It was a failed state in Afghanistan that provided a training ground for al-Qaida. It was a failed state where al-Qaida made its plans, grew its forces, and emerged to threaten our national security. We need a comprehensive foreign policy strategy to deal with failed states, but we must also have a military ready to act if necessary. For the foreseeable future, the United States will need a larger ground force. Failure to build one now will only diminish our national security in the future. The war in Iraq proved that a lightning-fast, high-tech force can smash an opposing Army and drive to Baghdad in three weeks. But there is no substitute for a well-trained and equipped infantry to win the peace or secure a failed state. Those missions require an investment in the men and women of the American military--to expand their number, and to increase the number of forces that specialize in certain skills. To meet these needs, this legislation will expand the Active Duty Army by 30,000 and the Marines by 10,000 personnel. The men and women of the American military are sustained by the bonds they share within their unit, and by the love and strength they draw from home--from their families, their spouses, their children, their parents. Military families are unsung heroes who receive neither medals nor parades--giving everything they can to the men and women they love, men and women who have been called to war. They answered the call. And so must we--with a new commitment to smarter defense policies, like those I outlined earlier, and better care for military families. So the legislation I offer today also includes a Military Family Bill of Rights, a set of policies enshrined in law, to provide assistance to the families of the American military. Investing in military families isn't just an act of compassion--it's 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 service members are married today. If we want to retain our most experienced service members, especially the non-commissioned 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. We can begin by increasing the financial support military families receive. We can help them meet the increased expenses every military family faces when a loved-one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when called to active duty. Some employers make up the difference in lost wages. We should reward those patriotic business leaders. And since small businesses don't have the workforces that make it possible to spread such costs, we should offer a Small Business Tax Credit to those who make up the difference between a reservist's civilian and military pay. This legislation would also establish Military Reservist Economic Injury Disaster Grants to buttress existing loan programs that help small-businesses survive when a vital employee, or even the owner, is mobilized. It also creates the Reservists Enterprise Transition and Sustainability Task Force to help small businesses prepare for and cope with the mobilization of reservist-employees and owners. For all service members, this legislation permits penalty free withdrawals from Individual Retirement Accounts for deployment-related expenses, such as increased child-care and other costs. 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 because they haven't seen a doctor in 2 years, that's bad for readiness and that's bad for unit effectiveness. As part of the Military Family Bill of Rights, we will extend military health insurance eligibility to all members of the National Guard and Reserve, whether mobilized or not. One of the unfortunate truths about war is that it takes lives--and mostly young lives. For their survivors, much of life remains, and we must be generous in our efforts to help them put their lives back together. Almost a year ago, I proposed increasing the military's death benefit to $250,000. When combined with the Servicemembers Group Life Insurance, a family would receive $500,000 when a loved-one dies in the service of our nation. No one can ever put a price on a life, but we ought to do what we can to help families coping with the worst of news. The President recently embraced a formula to reach the $500,000 threshold, and I'm glad he has joined this effort. Our generosity must not stop there. At present, survivors of those killed in action have 180 days to move out of military housing. But for those with young children in school, 180 days may mean starting a school year in one State, and finishing it in another. With all the disruption the loss of a parent will bring to their lives, survivors should have the flexibility to stay in their homes for one year after the death of a service member. It's the least we can do for those who have paid the ultimate price. But let's be honest: No piece of legislation will ever anticipate all the needs of America's military families. Someone will always fall through the cracks. And the legislation I intend to offer will try to fix that. Take the case of Jay Briseno. Jay was wounded in Iraq and left paralyzed from the neck down. The law authorizes the VA to provide $11,000 to modify a disabled veteran's vehicle, but it doesn't provide the resources a family needs to buy the specially out-fitted vehicle Jay needed. In his case, a generous member of the community donated the van the Briseno's now use to drive Jay to doctors appointments and hospital visits. And we are all grateful for that act of generosity. But no family should ever have to be so dependent on charity to meet a basic need. Americans will do everything in our power to help military families. But not all Americans can afford to buy modified minivans for wounded veterans, and not all military families have the same needs. So as part of my Military Family Bill of Rights, we will establish a Military Family Relief Fund. Every American who pays taxes will be able to contribute by checking a box on their income tax returns. Just as we let Americans donate a few dollars to finance our presidential elections on their tax forms, we should give them this opportunity to say thank you to our troops. The program will meet the needs we can't expect with the flexibility and responsiveness our service members, veterans, and their families deserve. Supporting military families must also extend beyond service in uniform--with programs across government to help with jobs, VA benefits, healthcare, and education. Veterans possess great leadership and technical skills, but they often lack the financial resources to turn that potential into a viable enterprise. A recent report by the Small Business Administration stated that 22 percent of veterans plan to start or are starting a business when they leave the military. For service-disabled veterans, this number rises to 28 percent. So the legislation I introduce today will create a new program, administered by the Small Business Administration, to provide very-low interest loans, up to $100,000, to help veterans start new small businesses. But in this time of war, we have another obligation to meet the needs of those suffering with the experience of war. The Pentagon believes that as many as 100,000 new combat veterans across the country will need some level of mental health care. The New England Journal of Medicine has reported as many as 1 in 6 soldiers returning from Iraq show symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Fewer than 40 percent of those sought help. Military officials and mental health providers predict that up to 30 percent of returning soldiers will require psychiatric services associated with their experience in war. Through July of last year, 31,000 veterans of Operation Iraqi Freedom had applied for disability benefits for injuries--and 20 percent of those claims were for psychological conditions. These are levels not seen since the Vietnam War. Our VA medical facilities are not ready for increased demands for the treatment of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In fact only 86 of 163 VA Medical Centers have PTSD treatment centers. We must do better. The wounds of war are not always visible, and we cannot sit back and wait for people to ask for help. We have to be proactive. Soldiers and Marines returning from war want to go home. They don't want to do anything that could jeopardize their homecoming. That's what happened to Jeffrey Lucey, a Marine Reservist from Belchertown, MA. When he was leaving Iraq, his first instinct was to report traumatic memories of things he had seen in the war. But someone told him it might delay his return home, so Jeff kept quiet. But the safety, security, and joy of homecoming eluded Jeff. Haunted by the war and what he had seen, he began to drink heavily. He was plagued by recurring nightmares, and began talking about suicide. Last summer, Jeff took his own life. Jeff's story is a preventable tragedy, and a call to action. As part of the legislation I plan, keeping faith with Jeff's family who have become committed advocates in his memory, we will expand PTSD programs within the VA and require outreach efforts to find the veterans who need the care. Our obligation is 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. Those who have stood for us should know that we stand with them, today and always. Each of us can do something to ease their burden--but truly supporting our troops requires that we act not just as individuals, but as a nation. We owe our troops the opportunity to serve in the best-planned, best-equipped, and best-led military force in the world, and we owe them the peace of mind that comes from knowing that they and their families will be taken care of if they sacrifice life, limb or the ability to sleep without war's nightmares. We owe them not just thanks and best wishes, but action here in Congress. In today's ever-changing and perilous world, there is not a moment to lose.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we consider the nomination of Judge Alberto Gonzales--President Bush's selection for Attorney General of the United States. I will oppose this nomination for several reasons. Judge Gonzales's deep involvement in formulating the administration's detention and interrogation policies and his refusal to candidly answer questions about these matters concern me. As White House Counsel, Judge Gonzales played a pivotal role in shaping the administration's policies on the detention and interrogation of enemy prisoners. In 2002 Judge Gonzales advised the President that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to terror suspects, and described some of the treaty's provisions as ``quaint.'' This dismissive approach to our international commitments laid the basis for President Bush's decision to treat terror suspects as ``unlawful enemy combatants.'' In casting aside the Conventions, Judge Gonzales opened a Pandora's Box that brought the country and American troops less security. Separately, the Department of Justice circulated a memo it had written-- at Judge Gonzales's request--that provided an extremely narrow definition of torture. The memo was widely condemned and contrary to the plain language of the U.S. anti-torture statute and all legal precedents. When asked about this memo at his confirmation hearing, Gonzales said he did not recall, ``whether or not I was in agreement with all of the analysis.'' Do these revelations necessarily mean that Judge Gonzales is directly responsible for the prisoner abuse scandal that has damaged our national security and tarnished our Nation? Of course not. But his actions--at the very least--helped to create the environment in which the Abu Ghraib scandal took place. The result is less certain intelligence and more danger for American forces around the world. I was struck during the hearings on Judge Gonzales's nomination when Senator Leahy asked if leaders of foreign governments could torture U.S. citizens if they thought it necessary to protect their own national security. Judge Gonzales replied: Senator, I don't know what laws other world leaders would be bound by. And I think it would--I'm not in a position to answer that question. I wrote to Judge Gonzales asking him to clarify his answer. He responded, in fact that: international law forbids the use of torture. All parties to the Convention Against Torture have committed not to engage in torture and to ensure that all acts of torture are offenses under their criminal law. But it does not address the heart of the issue. Judge Gonzales interpreted U.S. and international law to suggest that U.S. citizens could conduct torture when the President of the United States gave them authority to do so. In doing so, he undermined the legitimacy of the very international norms he asserts would protect U.S. citizens. His assertions collapse under the weight of their own flawed logic. This is not simply my judgment alone, but the judgment of some of America's most distinguished, retired military officers--including General John Shalikashvili, the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Hoar, former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command, and Lt. General Claudia J. Kennedy, the former deputy Chief of Staff for Army Intelligence. In an open letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee, they wrote: During his tenure as White House Counsel, Mr. Gonzales appears to have played a significant role in shaping U.S. detention and interrogation operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Guantanamo Bay, and elsewhere. Today it is clear that these operations have fostered greater animosity toward the United States, undermined our intelligence gathering efforts, and added to the risks facing our troops serving around the world. Judge Gonzales's interpretation of our commitments under U.S. and international law has been widely condemned in the United States and abroad, including by members of the State and Defense Departments. He is not an appropriate selection for the Attorney General of the United States. Judge Gonzales's confirmation process presented him with an opportunity to reassure the country that as Attorney General he would uphold and enforce the laws that prohibit torture. Instead he offered evasive and overly legalistic answers. Judge Gonzales's refusal to answer questions about administration policy--either in oral testimony or in written responses to questions--raises doubts about his commitment to the rule of law. His lack of candor before the Judiciary Committee leaves many outstanding questions about his role in determining administration policy. One can only conclude that either he lacks a fundamental understanding of U.S. and international law, which I believe to be untrue, or he is dismissive of its applicability as it relates to the President. We have seen this approach taken by this administration before. They do not consult, they do not confer, they do not exercise good judgment and that is the end of the story. The rest of us are left to deal with the consequences. The policies Judge Gonzales favored have tarred the image of America in the world--not made us safer. They have placed our troops at even greater risk--not protected them. The choices he made as White House Counsel showed unacceptable judgment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, tonight the President will deliver his fifth State of the Union address. It is expected that he will, in that address, talk about his plan to expand the ownership of businesses, as he did in his Inaugural Address. As a long-time member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, I hope that the administration will also tend to the needs of small businesses that already exist, in particular those struggling to make ends meet with the record high cost of heating fuels. It could be done very easily by making those small businesses eligible to apply for low-cost disaster loans through the Small Business Administration's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. And by making small farms and agricultural businesses eligible for loans through a similar loan program at the Department of Agriculture. There has been a bipartisan push for this assistance in Congress twice in the past few years, most recently in November during the consideration of the mega funding bill, the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report. It makes no sense that out of 3,000 pages of legislation and almost $400 billion in spending, the White House and the Republican leadership, opposing members in their own party, refused to help the little guy. While it would have been most helpful to these businesses--from small heating oil dealers to small manufacturers--to enact the legislation in November when the prices were at an all-time high, we can still be helpful now. In that spirit, together with Senator Reed and 17 of my colleagues, I am re-introducing the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act. I thank Senators Reed, Dodd, Bingaman, Kohl, Jeffords, Cantwell, Johnson, Pryor, Leahy, Levin, Schumer, Lieberman, Clinton, Harkin, Kennedy, Bayh and Obama. In the past, this assistance has been supported by many Republicans, and I hope they will again cosponsor the legislation. I have reached out to them in hopes that they will once again work in a bipartisan way to help our small businesses. I know the heating oil issue is important to Senator Snowe, my colleague and chairman of the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, and I look forward to working with her. I am hopeful that she will cosponsor this bill and agree to take action on it in Committee as soon as possible. We have built a very clear record over the years on how this legislation would work and why it is needed. Let me take a few minutes to summarize those conclusions. The Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005 would provide emergency relief, through affordable, low-interest SBA and USDA Disaster loans, to small businesses adversely affected by, or likely to be adversely affected by, significant increases in the prices of four heating fuels--heating oil, propane, kerosene, and natural gas. This would be helpful, because for those businesses in danger of or already suffering from significant economic injury caused by crippling increases in the costs of heating fuel, they need access to capital to mitigate or avoid serious losses. However, commercial lenders typically won't make loans to these small businesses because they often don't have the increased cash flow to demonstrate the ability to repay the loan. Economic injury disaster loans give affected small businesses necessary working capital until normal operations resume, or until they can restructure or change the business to address the market changes. These are direct loans, made through the SBA, with interest rates of 4 percent or less. The SBA tailors the repayment of each economic injury disaster loan to each borrower's financial capability, enabling them to avoid the robbing Peter to pay Paul syndrome, as they juggle bills. In practical terms, SBA considers economic injury to be when a small business is unable, or likely to be unable, to meet its obligations as they mature or to pay its ordinary and necessary operating expenses. To be eligible to apply for an economic injury loan, you must be a small business that has been the victim of some kind of disaster, you must have used all reasonably available funds, and you must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere. Under this program, the disaster must be declared by the President, the SBA Administrator, or a governor at the discretion of the Administrator. Small businesses will have nine months to apply from October 1, 2004 or, for future disasters, from the day a disaster is declared. This bill differs from the legislation we put forward in 2001 in that it uses a different trigger to define a disaster. For this legislation, Senator Reed worked closely with the Department of Energy to identify what would be considered extreme price jumps in the heating fuels of heating oil, natural gas, and propane. Therefore, the assistance under this bill would become available when the price jumps 40 percent, when compared to the same period for the two previous years, when absorbing the cost becomes nearly impossible. Mr. President, I again ask that my colleagues get behind this bill and make it law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a bipartisan letter of support, a copy of the cosponsors from the 107th Congress, and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, tonight the President will deliver his fifth State of the Union address. It is expected that he will, in that address, talk about his plan to expand the ownership of businesses, as he did in his Inaugural Address. As a long-time member of the Senate Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, I hope that the administration will also tend to the needs of small businesses that already exist, in particular those struggling to make ends meet with the record high cost of heating fuels. It could be done very easily by making those small businesses eligible to apply for low-cost disaster loans through the Small Business Administration's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. And by making small farms and agricultural businesses eligible for loans through a similar loan program at the Department of Agriculture. There has been a bipartisan push for this assistance in Congress twice in the past few years, most recently in November during the consideration of the mega funding bill, the FY2005 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report. It makes no sense that out of 3,000 pages of legislation and almost $400 billion in spending, the White House and the Republican leadership, opposing members in their own party, refused to help the little guy. While it would have been most helpful to these businesses--from small heating oil dealers to small manufacturers--to enact the legislation in November when the prices were at an all-time high, we can still be helpful now. In that spirit, together with Senator Reed and 17 of my colleagues, I am re-introducing the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act. I thank Senators Reed, Dodd, Bingaman, Kohl, Jeffords, Cantwell, Johnson, Pryor, Leahy, Levin, Schumer, Lieberman, Clinton, Harkin, Kennedy, Bayh and Obama. In the past, this assistance has been supported by many Republicans, and I hope they will again cosponsor the legislation. I have reached out to them in hopes that they will once again work in a bipartisan way to help our small businesses. I know the heating oil issue is important to Senator Snowe, my colleague and chairman of the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, and I look forward to working with her. I am hopeful that she will cosponsor this bill and agree to take action on it in Committee as soon as possible. We have built a very clear record over the years on how this legislation would work and why it is needed. Let me take a few minutes to summarize those conclusions. The Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005 would provide emergency relief, through affordable, low-interest SBA and USDA Disaster loans, to small businesses adversely affected by, or likely to be adversely affected by, significant increases in the prices of four heating fuels--heating oil, propane, kerosene, and natural gas. This would be helpful, because for those businesses in danger of or already suffering from significant economic injury caused by crippling increases in the costs of heating fuel, they need access to capital to mitigate or avoid serious losses. However, commercial lenders typically won't make loans to these small businesses because they often don't have the increased cash flow to demonstrate the ability to repay the loan. Economic injury disaster loans give affected small businesses necessary working capital until normal operations resume, or until they can restructure or change the business to address the market changes. These are direct loans, made through the SBA, with interest rates of 4 percent or less. The SBA tailors the repayment of each economic injury disaster loan to each borrower's financial capability, enabling them to avoid the robbing Peter to pay Paul syndrome, as they juggle bills. In practical terms, SBA considers economic injury to be when a small business is unable, or likely to be unable, to meet its obligations as they mature or to pay its ordinary and necessary operating expenses. To be eligible to apply for an economic injury loan, you must be a small business that has been the victim of some kind of disaster, you must have used all reasonably available funds, and you must be unable to obtain credit elsewhere. Under this program, the disaster must be declared by the President, the SBA Administrator, or a governor at the discretion of the Administrator. Small businesses will have nine months to apply from October 1, 2004 or, for future disasters, from the day a disaster is declared. This bill differs from the legislation we put forward in 2001 in that it uses a different trigger to define a disaster. For this legislation, Senator Reed worked closely with the Department of Energy to identify what would be considered extreme price jumps in the heating fuels of heating oil, natural gas, and propane. Therefore, the assistance under this bill would become available when the price jumps 40 percent, when compared to the same period for the two previous years, when absorbing the cost becomes nearly impossible. Mr. President, I again ask that my colleagues get behind this bill and make it law as soon as possible. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a bipartisan letter of support, a copy of the cosponsors from the 107th Congress, and a copy of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's small businesses, their employees and their employees' families. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. At the same time, more than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they're called to defend our Nation. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to resist employees called up for active duty and to replace them with a temporary employee. However, too many small businesses are unable to provide this assistance (or temporarily replace the employee called up to active duty. I believe the Federal Government must take action to help small businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect small business employees and their families from suffering unnecessary financial hardship to serve our Nation. That is why I am again introducing legislation that will provide an immediate tax credit assist both military reservists who are called to active duty and the small businesses who must endure their absence. The Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I am introducing today will provide immediate help to affected small businesses through a Federal income tax credit and a reduced withholding requirement to help pay the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty and the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Specifically, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $21,000 to any very small business, defined as any business with up to 50 employees, whose employee has been called up for active duty. Up to $15,000 for businesses that pay any difference in salary for the activated reservist and up to an additional $6,000 for the business to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. For small manufacturers with up to 100 employees, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $30,000, up to $20,000 for small manufacturers that pay all or part of the difference in salary for the reservist called to duty and up to $10,000 for small manufacturers to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. This tax credit is critically necessary if we are to immediately help struggling entrepreneurs keep their small businesses running after the loss of an employee to temporary military service. Too many American small manufacturers are already facing a difficult economy and strong international competition. This legislation provides higher thresholds for small manufacturers because they need greater help and they employ more technical workers who typically command higher salaries and are more difficult to replace. It will also help cushion the financial cost of being a citizen solder for our reservists. To fight our wars and to meet our military responsibilities, the United States supplements its regular, standing military with reservists, citizen soldiers who serve nobly. Since 1973, the United States has built an all-volunteer military of which reservists are an essential part. Our reservists are much more than weekend warriors. When they are called to active duty, they are an essential ingredient of any long-term or significant deployment of American forces. Everyone knows the contributions our reservists have made in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The use of reservists is a significant way to reduce the costs of maintaining a standing army, and those costs, in lieu of having a critical reservist component, are far higher than the cost of providing the small, targeted tax credit offered by this legislation. Reservists have become a vital component of U.S. forces in Iraq and the war on terror. On September 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 authorizing the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to 2 years of active duty. Since October 2002, there has been a presidentially approved ceiling of 300,000 on the number of reservists that can be on duty at anyone time. Some 475,000 reserves have been called up cumulatively since the issuance of the original Executive Order. Today, there are about 193,458 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism. Of the approximately 150,000 troops serving in Iraq, 40 percent are reserves. This number is expected to increase to approximately 50 percent in the near future as current troop deployments mobilize. Earlier this month, published reports showed that Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the Commander of the Reserve, has told Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker that the burdens placed on military reservists since the September 11, 2001 attacks, combined with dysfunctional Pentagon policies, have damaged morale and retention and threaten to turn the Army Reserve into a broken force. Lt. Gen. Helmly criticized Pentagon decisions to extend reservists tours in war zones, giving troops as little as 3 days' notice before mobilizations, and calling reservists to active duty after they had served and returned to civilian life. Such policies have strained the Army Reserve to the point that the 200,000 force could be unable to carry out future missions. Both the Army Reserve and National Guard have suffered shortfalls in recruitment because of the unpredictability, extended call-ups and stop loss policies associated with the Iraq war. National Guard officials said last month that the service must be overhauled. Everyone knows that small businesses continue to be a most effective at creating new jobs and spurring economic growth nationwide. Small businesses employ over 50 percent of the nation's workforce. Nationwide, small businesses are currently creating 75 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, many of these small businesses provide quality goods and services that are a vital link in the supply chain for our national defense. Many of these small companies need immediate help to keep their business going while their employees are sacrificing for our country in Iraq and elsewhere. Many of our reservists left their companies in good shape. They were profitable, providing goods or services, creating jobs, adding to the tax base. Our Nation should do everything possible to ensure that upon their return, reservists and their businesses do not suffer unnecessary hardships, which range from impaired operations and financial ruin to deserted clients, layoffs, and even closure. Pedro Sotelo, a 33-year- old veteran from Kansas City, MO, was a reservist for 9 years. From 1997 to 2004 he was called up to active duty 10 times. Each time he was activated, he saw his income drop from $60,000 a year as a small business sheet metal worker to about $30,000 the Army paid him as a staff sergeant. While he was away serving his country, the bills would just keep pilling up. Eventually his credit rating plummeted. The continual financial strain contributed to the end of his first marriage, and after 9 years of service, Mr. Sotelo left the military to take a job selling cars. He is still recovering from the financial ruin created by his service, but I am happy to say that Mr. Sotelo has remarried and was recently promoted to manager at his dealership. Had the bill I introduce today been available for Staff Sergeant Sotelo, his small business employer could have kept his income steady and received a tax credit to cover half of the costs of doing so. Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, 41 percent of military reservists and National Guard members, like Staff Sergeant Sotelo, face a pay cut when they're called for active duty in our armed forces. Many of these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income to make up for the salary disparity for military reservists called to active duty, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. This makes it more difficult for small businesses to attract and keep workers. I think it is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our Nation. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family. Back in 1999, I wrote the Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act, which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress and authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding, including disaster loans, for small businesses that have had a military reservist called up for active duty. It also established a low-interest economic injury loan program administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans have been available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. However, in today's economy, many small businesses are unable to take on additional debt to continue their operations. These small businesses need immediate tax relief to assist them in hiring a replacement and to pay their reservist worker who is away serving our country. This bill will help every small business whose owner, manager or employee is called to active duty. Most immediately, this bill will assist those small businesses whose employees are in service in Iraq and elsewhere but the act also applies to future contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies. By helping our reservists and the small businesses that employ them, we can ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family. I ask all my colleagues to support this important legislation to help both military reservists and the small businesses they are forced to leave when they are called up for active duty.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the continuing activation of military reservists to serve in Iraq and the war on terror has imposed a tremendous burden on many of our country's small businesses, their employees and their employees' families. Too many small businesses, when their employees are asked to leave their jobs and serve the Nation, are unable to continue operating successfully and face severe financial difficulties, even bankruptcy. At the same time, more than 40 percent of military reservists and National Guard members suffer a pay cut when they're called to defend our Nation. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to resist employees called up for active duty and to replace them with a temporary employee. However, too many small businesses are unable to provide this assistance (or temporarily replace the employee called up to active duty. I believe the Federal Government must take action to help small businesses weather the loss of an employee to active duty and protect small business employees and their families from suffering unnecessary financial hardship to serve our Nation. That is why I am again introducing legislation that will provide an immediate tax credit assist both military reservists who are called to active duty and the small businesses who must endure their absence. The Small Business Military Reservist Tax Credit Act that I am introducing today will provide immediate help to affected small businesses through a Federal income tax credit and a reduced withholding requirement to help pay the difference in salary for a reservist called up to active duty and the cost of temporarily replacing that employee while he or she is serving our Nation. Specifically, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $21,000 to any very small business, defined as any business with up to 50 employees, whose employee has been called up for active duty. Up to $15,000 for businesses that pay any difference in salary for the activated reservist and up to an additional $6,000 for the business to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. For small manufacturers with up to 100 employees, the bill will provide a tax credit of up to $30,000, up to $20,000 for small manufacturers that pay all or part of the difference in salary for the reservist called to duty and up to $10,000 for small manufacturers to offset the cost of hiring a temporary replacement. This tax credit is critically necessary if we are to immediately help struggling entrepreneurs keep their small businesses running after the loss of an employee to temporary military service. Too many American small manufacturers are already facing a difficult economy and strong international competition. This legislation provides higher thresholds for small manufacturers because they need greater help and they employ more technical workers who typically command higher salaries and are more difficult to replace. It will also help cushion the financial cost of being a citizen solder for our reservists. To fight our wars and to meet our military responsibilities, the United States supplements its regular, standing military with reservists, citizen soldiers who serve nobly. Since 1973, the United States has built an all-volunteer military of which reservists are an essential part. Our reservists are much more than weekend warriors. When they are called to active duty, they are an essential ingredient of any long-term or significant deployment of American forces. Everyone knows the contributions our reservists have made in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard. They have been serving our country with distinction and pride for many years and should not be penalized financially for their honorable service. The use of reservists is a significant way to reduce the costs of maintaining a standing army, and those costs, in lieu of having a critical reservist component, are far higher than the cost of providing the small, targeted tax credit offered by this legislation. Reservists have become a vital component of U.S. forces in Iraq and the war on terror. On September 14, 2001, President Bush issued Executive Order 13223 authorizing the activation of up to 1 million military reservists for up to 2 years of active duty. Since October 2002, there has been a presidentially approved ceiling of 300,000 on the number of reservists that can be on duty at anyone time. Some 475,000 reserves have been called up cumulatively since the issuance of the original Executive Order. Today, there are about 193,458 reserves on active duty in the war against terrorism. Of the approximately 150,000 troops serving in Iraq, 40 percent are reserves. This number is expected to increase to approximately 50 percent in the near future as current troop deployments mobilize. Earlier this month, published reports showed that Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, the Commander of the Reserve, has told Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker that the burdens placed on military reservists since the September 11, 2001 attacks, combined with dysfunctional Pentagon policies, have damaged morale and retention and threaten to turn the Army Reserve into a broken force. Lt. Gen. Helmly criticized Pentagon decisions to extend reservists tours in war zones, giving troops as little as 3 days' notice before mobilizations, and calling reservists to active duty after they had served and returned to civilian life. Such policies have strained the Army Reserve to the point that the 200,000 force could be unable to carry out future missions. Both the Army Reserve and National Guard have suffered shortfalls in recruitment because of the unpredictability, extended call-ups and stop loss policies associated with the Iraq war. National Guard officials said last month that the service must be overhauled. Everyone knows that small businesses continue to be a most effective at creating new jobs and spurring economic growth nationwide. Small businesses employ over 50 percent of the nation's workforce. Nationwide, small businesses are currently creating 75 percent of new jobs. Furthermore, many of these small businesses provide quality goods and services that are a vital link in the supply chain for our national defense. Many of these small companies need immediate help to keep their business going while their employees are sacrificing for our country in Iraq and elsewhere. Many of our reservists left their companies in good shape. They were profitable, providing goods or services, creating jobs, adding to the tax base. Our Nation should do everything possible to ensure that upon their return, reservists and their businesses do not suffer unnecessary hardships, which range from impaired operations and financial ruin to deserted clients, layoffs, and even closure. Pedro Sotelo, a 33-year- old veteran from Kansas City, MO, was a reservist for 9 years. From 1997 to 2004 he was called up to active duty 10 times. Each time he was activated, he saw his income drop from $60,000 a year as a small business sheet metal worker to about $30,000 the Army paid him as a staff sergeant. While he was away serving his country, the bills would just keep pilling up. Eventually his credit rating plummeted. The continual financial strain contributed to the end of his first marriage, and after 9 years of service, Mr. Sotelo left the military to take a job selling cars. He is still recovering from the financial ruin created by his service, but I am happy to say that Mr. Sotelo has remarried and was recently promoted to manager at his dealership. Had the bill I introduce today been available for Staff Sergeant Sotelo, his small business employer could have kept his income steady and received a tax credit to cover half of the costs of doing so. Beyond the hardship of leaving their families, their homes and their regular employment, 41 percent of military reservists and National Guard members, like Staff Sergeant Sotelo, face a pay cut when they're called for active duty in our armed forces. Many of these reservists have families who depend upon that paycheck to survive and can least afford a substantial reduction in pay. Unlike many big businesses that can afford to provide supplemental income to make up for the salary disparity for military reservists called to active duty, most small businesses cannot afford to provide this benefit. This makes it more difficult for small businesses to attract and keep workers. I think it is imperative that we help families of reservists maintain their standard of living while their loved one serves our Nation. We must ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family. Back in 1999, I wrote the Military Reservist Small Business Relief Act, which was enacted into law during the 106th Congress and authorized the Small Business Administration (SBA) to defer existing loan repayments and to reduce the interest rates on direct loans that may be outstanding, including disaster loans, for small businesses that have had a military reservist called up for active duty. It also established a low-interest economic injury loan program administered by the SBA through its disaster loan program. These loans have been available to provide interim operating capital to any small business when the departure of a military reservist for active duty causes economic injury. However, in today's economy, many small businesses are unable to take on additional debt to continue their operations. These small businesses need immediate tax relief to assist them in hiring a replacement and to pay their reservist worker who is away serving our country. This bill will help every small business whose owner, manager or employee is called to active duty. Most immediately, this bill will assist those small businesses whose employees are in service in Iraq and elsewhere but the act also applies to future contingency operations, military conflicts, or national emergencies. By helping our reservists and the small businesses that employ them, we can ensure that our great tradition of citizen soldiers does not fade or stop because of the effect service has on work and family. I ask all my colleagues to support this important legislation to help both military reservists and the small businesses they are forced to leave when they are called up for active duty.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as Ranking Member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, today I am introducing a package of bills that will help small business owners with access to loans, business counseling and Federal procurement opportunities. Each of the bills was previously introduced on its own or as part of the Committee's extensive Small Business Administration reauthorization proposal that passed the Senate unanimously last Congress. These are provisions that are necessary for enabling our nation's small businesses to continue to have the resources and tools they need to compete with larger companies. They will help America's budding entrepreneurs continue to seek out business opportunities and continue to start businesses. Enactment of this assistance will show that the Federal government is not there to make the road to success more difficult for small businesses, but to help them where the private sector will not. Mr. President, the first bill of this package is the Small Business Federal Contractor Safeguard Act. It includes essential contractor protections that were a part of the Small Business Administration reauthorization package that passed the Senate unanimously last Congress but was stalled during negotiations in the House of Representatives. These much-needed protections will help level the playing field for small firms and create a procurement atmosphere that fosters competition, fair access and equal opportunity for smaller entities. With Federal agencies awarding larger, more complex and more costly contracts, and with less staff at the Small Business Administration and within Agency contracting offices performing oversight, this nation's small businesses and its taxpayers are the ones shouldering the burden when small business goals continue to be unmet. In addition to helping small businesses obtain access to procurement opportunities, these goals are meant to help the government benefit from the cost-savings and innovations small business contractors can often provide. Significant steps were made during the last Congress to address the challenges of contract bundling; however, it is my belief that passing and implementing binding statutory requirements is the only long-term solution to the on-going problem of contract bundling, also called contract consolidation. The first section of the bill creates a two- tiered approach to preventing unnecessary contract consolidation. Civilian agencies will be required to meet specific standards if they attempt to consolidate contracts above $2 million and additional requirements for those contracts above $5 million. The Department of Defense is required to meet two types of similar requirements for contracts above $5 million and $7 million. The bill also eliminates the use of the term ``contract bundling'' and expands the definition of ``contract consolidation,'' closing a loophole that has been widely used to the detriment of many small businesses. In addition to increasing opportunities for prime contracts by eliminating unnecessary contract consolidation, this bill addresses another serious problem: the dishonest treatment of small business subcontractors by large business prime contractors. Small businesses have been severely hamstrung by the dishonest practices of some large business prime contracts that delay paying their subcontractors, falsely report their subcontracting plans and use ``bait and switch'' tactics. This bill holds prime contractors responsible for the validity of subcontracting data, requiring the CEO to certify to the accuracy of the subcontracting report under penalty of law. It also makes the penalties for falsifying data included in subcontracting reports match the current $500,000 penalty for businesses that falsify their status as a small and disadvantaged business. Under this bill, if one intentionally falsifies data as a part of a subcontracting report to a federal Agency, he is defrauding the United States government and will be punished to the full extent of the law. Finally, the bill requires contracting officers to maintain a database of contract performance that is made available to the small business subcontractor upon completion of the contract. This report can then be used as a record of past performance, building a history that will help successful small firms bid on future Federal prime contracts or subcontracts. Each contracting officer will be empowered to withhold a portion of the payment to the prime contractor until he also receives the completed and accurate performance report. Any material breach of contract that is found will be immediately reported to the Inspector General of that Agency for a complete investigation. The second bill of this small business legislative package is the SBA Microenterprise Improvements Act. It was also included as part of the Small Business Administration reauthorization package and passed by the Senate unanimously last Congress. I am reintroducing these provisions because they are vital to the microenterprise programs administered by the SBA: the Microloan Program and the Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs (PRIME). As I have stated on numerous occasions, I disagree with the Administration's proposals to cut back funding for microloans and training assistance intended to encourage entrepreneurship and foster America's smallest small businesses. And I wholeheartedly disagree with the Administration's ill- founded argument that these borrowers are being, or will be, served through the SBA's 7(a) loan guarantee program. SBA's loan programs are not one-size fits all. The small borrower in the Microloan program is different, and therefore has different needs, than the small business borrower being served through the 7(a) loan program. Both lending vehicles are important, but they are different, and one is not a substitute for the other. Who are these borrowers being served through the microloan program? Thirty percent are African American; 11 percent are Hispanic; 37 percent are women; and, anywhere from 30 percent to 40 percent go to small businesses in rural areas. Because of their size, the size of the loan they need and their relative inexperience, small businesses borrowers are turned away by banks, and yet the Administration proposed cutting the Microloan program by 36 percent in its fiscal year 2004 budget, and cut all funding in its fiscal year 2005 budget. The SBA needs to fully fund these programs and put more resources into the office that manages the program. Four people are not enough to manage 1,400 loans and 180 grants. To make matters worse, the SBA's long-time manager of micro-enterprise programs, Jody Raskind, is leaving the Agency. All those who support the good work of fostering SBA's Microloan program are sorry to see her go, not only because of her dedication and hard work, but also because they are concerned that the Administration will never really fill the job, letting the programs languish. I urge the Administration to move quickly to fill that position, just as the private sector would, by working with the Microloan community to identify someone who is competent, resourceful and dedicated to monitoring integrity of these programs and fostering their success. In addition, we need to finally enact some changes to the Microloan program that have passed the Senate several times over the last four years but have yet to pass the full Congress because of unrelated political fights. I urge my colleagues to let us move forward with making these provisions law, once and for all. The first part of the SBA Microenterprise Improvements Act includes many of the provisions passed as part of S. 174, a bill which Senator Snowe and I introduced in 2001 and the Committee and the full Senate voted to pass by unanimous consent in 2002. As I mentioned earlier, these provisions were also included as part of S.1375, the SBA reauthorization bill that passed the Senate unanimously in 2003. The updates and changes to the Microloan program included in this bill will improve the program in several ways. First, it will allow intermediaries to make revolving-term loans or longer fixed term loans to small businesses. Currently, intermediaries may only make ``short-term'' loans with fixed terms, which restrict the ability of microlenders to structure loans that meet the needs of certain small enterprises. This will benefit small businesses, the lenders, and the SBA because it will eliminate repeated paperwork and unnecessary administrative burdens. It will help small businesses, such as carpenters, who need revolving loans to finance the jobs as they come in, rather than taking multiple little, fixed-term loans. Second, this bill also contains a change to the Microlenders eligibility. Rather than tying eligibility to the expertise of the entity, this bill makes it possible for new entities to qualify as the SBA microlending intermediaries if they have staffs who are experienced in this unique or specialized lending and technical assistance. This bill also adjusts, reflecting changes in the market, the average smaller size of microloans from $7,500 to $10,000, to make it consistent with similar changes enacted in December 2000. This is important because microloan intermediaries that have a microloan portfolio with an average loan size of not more than $10,000 will now be eligible to receive an interest rate lower than the normal rate extended by the SBA to intermediaries. This bill also changes, from 25 percent to 30 percent, the amount of technical assistance (TA) funds an intermediary can contract with an outside expert and the amount of grants a lender can use to counsel prospective borrowers. In addition, the legislation requires the SBA to report annually on the requirement that states that Agency must contract out 7 percent of its loan dollars for intermediary training. Last, the SBA Microenterprise Improvements Act, like S.1375, requires the SBA to develop an improved subsidy rate model to determine the cost of microloans. The one the Agency has used since the program's inception does not reflect the performance of the program. For example, in Fiscal Year 2003, the administration's budget doubled the subsidy rate (which is the government's cost of the program) from 6.78 percent to 13.05 percent, even though the program had not experienced any loss of federal funds since the first loan was made in 1992. This broken method of calculating the cost of these loans is a waste of taxpayer money because Congress has to appropriate unnecessary funds to run the program. Now is the time to fix it. The second part of the SBA Microenterprise Improvements Act also comes from S.1375, but was not included in the small business reauthorization bill that passed Congress last session. It begins by reauthorizing the PRIME program through 2007 and transfers its legislative language from the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory Improvement Act of 1994 to section 37 of the Small Business Act. Additionally, it includes a provision that Senator Bingaman and I worked closely to develop that will expand PRIME with a separate $2 million authorization to provide direct, in-depth technical assistance and counseling to disadvantaged Native American small business owners. The rationale for amending the PRIME Act, rather than creating a separate program, is that PRIME is currently operational and simply needs additional targeted efforts and funding so it can better address the needs of the Native American entrepreneurial community. The Bingaman-Kerry approach uses an existing program structure to help find a solution to the long-term economic handicap existing in Native American communities nationwide. There are a number of microenterprise organizations in states across the country that are willing and prepared to take on the additional challenge of assisting disadvantaged Native American entrepreneurs, and there are a number of Native American communities that are eager to explore a different path to economic development. However, there are currently a limited amount of funds to allow that to happen. Again, I commend Senator Bingaman for his continued attention to these needs, for his continued support of small business legislation to address them, and for his foresight and vision for Native Americans in New Mexico and across the country. The Native American communities of our nation will be better off with the assistance that this provision makes possible. Again, it is time to move forward. Out of 66 pages of Small Business Administration reauthorizations and improvements that were slipped into the Omnibus Appropriations bill that passed at the end of the 108th Congress, these non-controversial provisions were included. They should have been. The third part of the package that I'm introducing today is a reintroduction of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act. Last Congress, I introduced this important piece of legislation as a companion to H.R. 1387, which bears the same name and was introduced in the House, in the 107th and 108th Congresses, by Congressman Robert Brady of Pennsylvania. Let me begin by reminding my colleagues that the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy states that only half of all small businesses survive past four years and that management and education remain two of the most important ingredients to small business success. We often think that small businesses only need money to succeed, but while adequate financing is vital, so too is careful planning and competent management. Often Americans who work in the trade sector-- construction, plumbing, electrical work, etc.--enter these professions with the goal of one day starting their own business; however many of these aspiring entrepreneurs who participate in career training or vocational training in certain trades, unfortunately, fail to obtain the necessary education and ``back room'' management skills to grow and develop their fledgling business. This initiative would develop a program that allows workers within the trades industry to move toward starting a new business by giving them the entrepreneurial skills to successfully manage a small business. Many small businesses fail not because they don't know the industry or make low-quality products or have poor service, but because they don't know the ins and outs of running a successful business. The purpose of the Vocational and Technical Entrepreneurship Development Act is to assist in the development of curricula that will encourage the successful growth of small businesses. This legislation passed the House in each of the last Congresses, but was not taken up by the full Senate. I hope that the committee and full Senate will act quickly on it now. The bill, in a business-education partnership, establishes a ``vocational entrepreneurship development demonstration program,'' under which the SBA would provide grants, through the Small Business Development Center network, to provide technical assistance to high school and technical career institutes, vo-tech schools, to promote small business ownership in their curriculum. The SBDC program is designed to deliver such up-to-date counseling, training and technical assistance in all aspects of small business management and is the ideal vehicle to provide such a program. Each grant awarded under this program will be worth at least $200,000-- which, in today's environment where vo-tech programs get shortchanged in government education budgets, can do a great deal to help rebuild a worker-strapped trades industry. There has been some concern that this legislation will duplicate programs such as those at the Department of Education's Office of Vocational and Adult Education, OVAE, which does provide valuable vocational education. The OVAE, and other such government programs, however, focus on helping workers gain new and updated skills so that they may find employment. In contrast, this legislation is targeted toward turning workers, not into better employees, but into potential employers. Traditional vocational education programs do not provide entrepreneurial training. This is a fundamental difference between this legislation's objective and that of the traditional vocation education provided by the Department of Education. Giving our trades industry professionals the skills to be successful business owners creates better employers and better, long-lasting businesses. This, in turn, will go a long way toward creating additional trade jobs across the country. I again want to commend Representative Brady for his years of hard work on behalf of entrepreneurs not just from his home State but on behalf of every trades industry worker who has ever thought of becoming his or her own boss by starting a business. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to cosponsor and support these three bills. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the Record.