John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy. Thanks to the efforts of tens of thousands of citizens, millions more Americans registered and went to the pools this year. But despite this dramatic expansion in public participation, many voters faced barriers to casting their ballot. Disenfranchisement and barriers to voting are fundamentally undemocratic and should be unacceptable in the freest nation in the world. On November 3, I conceded the Presidential election to George Bush and also expressed my commitment to ensuring that every vote in this election is counted. The questions being raised by my colleagues in Congress about the vote in Ohio are important. As evidenced by the media and Congressman John Conyers' report of the vote in Ohio, there were many voting irregularities in the November election that led to the disenfranchisement of voters. These included long lines at predominantly minority polling places resulting from the failure to provide sufficient number of voting machines; voter intimidation and misinformation; the restriction of provisional ballots in a fashion that likely disenfranchised voters; and instances in which malfunctioning voting machines transferred Kerry votes to Bush. I strongly believe that we need to investigate this election and reform our system. However, while I am deeply concerned about the issues the questions and issues being raised by this objection and think they are very important, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the objection and change the outcome of the election and I am not joining their protest of the Ohio electors. Despite widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote, our legal teams on the ground have found no evidence that would change the outcome of the election. It is critical that we investigate and understand any and every voting irregularity anywhere in our country, not because it would change the outcome of the election but because Americans have to believe that their votes are counted in our democracy. We must take action this Congress to make sure that the problems voters encountered in Ohio and elsewhere never happen again. We must make sure there are no questions or doubts in future elections. It is critical to our democracy that we investigate and act to prevent voting irregularities and voter intimidation across the country. I strongly support the efforts of the civil rights and voting rights groups across the country that continue to investigate what happened in 2004 and how we can ensure it will never happen again. A Presidential election is a national Federal election but we have different standards in different States for casting and counting votes. We must have a national Federal standard to solve the problems that occurred in the 2004 election. I am calling on my Republican colleagues to put election reform on the congressional agenda this year. The Republican leadership in the House and Senate must commit to make protecting voting rights a priority and commit to adding election reform legislation to the legislative calendar this year. One goal must be to eliminate barriers to voting, to encourage the greatest level of civic participation possible, and to restore confidence in the notion that every eligible voter will have the opportunity to vote and to have their vote counted. I have spoken with Democratic Senate Leader Harry Reid and my colleagues in the House and Senate about my intention to introduce legislation this year to ensure transparency and accountability in our voting system and the need for the Democratic Caucus to make voting rights and electoral reform one of our top priority pieces of legislation. Election reform will be one of my top agenda items. I will be meeting in coming weeks with key leaders on both sides of the aisle and from civil rights and voting rights groups across the Nation. I plan to use the information gathered by Representative Conyers in his report, and information from other investigations underway, to guide my legislation. We must invest resources in our country to help State and local communities purchase modern voting machines and do research and development on safe and secure forms of voting. We must ensure that our voting machines enable voters to verify their vote. No American citizen should wake up the morning after the election and worry their vote wasn't counted. No citizen should be denied at the polls if they are eligible to vote. As the greatest, wealthiest nation on Earth, our citizens should not have to be forced to vote on old unaccountable voting machines. And, as the greatest, wealthiest Nation on Earth, our citizens should never be forced to vote on old, unaccountable and nontransparent voting machines from companies controlled by partisan activists. Together we can put the critical issue of electoral reform on the front burner in Washington and across the country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I oppose the passage of the Omnibus appropriations conference report. The bill before us was written in a process that is the legislative equivalent of painting a room in the dark. You don't know exactly how the room will look until you turn on the lights, but you can be sure that it will be a mess. And, of course, that is what has happened. This bill is a mess. The Republican leadership has taken nine spending bills, funding 13 Government agencies with more than $388 billion, and combined them into a single bill that is more than 3,000 pages long. On top of all that spending, they have included several riders that make unrelated changes in Federal law. Most of these bills were never debated or amended by the full Senate. Many of the provisions haven't even had a committee hearing. The only people who have had a chance to review and amend the bill are the Republican leadership and the White House, and all of that went on behind closed doors. And the public, the press and almost every Member of Congress has had no real opportunity to review them before we vote and send them to the President to become law. So it comes as no surprise that this massive spending bill, created by a terribly flawed process, is itself terribly flawed. The Republican majority and the Bush administration have provided inadequate investments in education, housing, small business and a number of other important domestic priorities. The Community Oriented Policing Systems program, called the COPS program, has been eviscerated, and funding for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program has been cut. Both of these programs help our cities and towns fight crime and protect our citizens but putting well-trained and well-equipped cops on the street. And both programs had played an increasingly important role in homeland security. The bill does not keep our promise to care for our veterans. The funding level included in the conference report for veteran's healthcare, while above last year's level, is insufficient to meet the needs of our veterans. Today, 500,000 veterans are prevented from receiving health care through the Veterans Administration. New veterans are fighting to obtain the services they have earned. Thousands more are waiting for disability ratings. The Congress had an opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of those who have given so much for this country, and the Congress failed. The bill harms small businesses by failing to provide access to the capital they need for investment and growth. As the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I know how critical small business loans are to expanding economic opportunity, especially in low-income neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the bill eliminates all funding and increases fees for the program at the Small Business Administration that is the largest source of small business loans in the Nation. I will not try to list all the worthwhile programs that have been cut or eliminated, because the list is just too long. The point is simple: dozens of Federal investments that help our cities and towns, our schools, our small businesses, our police, our environment and much more have been needlessly cut. And those cuts will do needless harm to communities and families all across the country. And along with the spending provisions of the bill, the White House and the Republican leadership have attached riders that make changes in Federal law. These are provisions that have not been considered by the House or Senate, and in many cases have not received a committee hearing or markup. The bill includes a provision that will prevent Federal, State and local governments from requiring any institutional or individual health care provider to provide, pay for, or refer for abortion services. Ten of my female colleagues, including two Republicans, have expressed their strong opposition to that provision and affect it may have on reproductive health services. In a letter to the Appropriations Committee, they point out that the provision has never been considered and never had a hearing in the Senate. It comes down to this: whether you support or oppose this provision, and I oppose it, this is no way to do the people's work. Whatever you think of this provision, it does not belong in a 3,000 page spending bill. It deserves a hearing, a debate and vote. Another provision that was included with no vote, hearing or discussion by the Senate would allow congressional staff access to the tax returns of individuals and businesses. There is absolutely no justification for such a provision in this bill or anywhere else. It is a shocking abuse of power by the Republicans. This provision, which would allow congressional staff to review any private citizen's tax return, is unacceptable. It tramples the rights of our citizens and grossly violates the public trust. I am pleased to hear the assurances of the majority leader that this provision will be removed from the bill. However, we need to understand how it came to be included in the conference report. Who in the Congress sponsored this provision? Who in the White House approved it, since we know the White House has blessed this bill? Is there any good in this bill? Of course there are many worthwhile Federal programs that are funded. Like a broken clock is right twice a day, a bill spending $388 billion will get a few things right. I am pleased that the conference report includes $62 million for the YouthBuild program, which is a highly effective comprehensive program that helps at-risk youth obtain an education and take responsibility for their lives and their communities. YouthBuild is the only national program that provides young adults an immediately productive role in the community while also providing equal measures of basic education toward a diploma, skills training toward a decent paying job, leadership development toward civic engagement, adult mentorship toward overcoming personal problems, and participation in a supportive mini- community with a positive set of values. And there are other good programs this bill has funded adequately. I am grateful for the good that will come from this legislation, including funding for Federal projects and programs in Massachusetts. On a whole, the bad outweighs the good in this bill, and I will vote against it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to a champion of this Nation's small businesses and to honor the work, dedication and life of Milton D. Stewart, the first Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mr. Stewart passed away at the age of 82, following an extensive and diverse career that included entrepreneurship, government, service to small businesses, law, journalism, and academia. One of the most highly successful innovations of the House and Senate Small Business Committees came with the creation of the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business Administration. This office was established to represent and advance small business interests before other Federal agencies and the Congress. Congress recognized the importance of small business to the competitiveness of the American economy and understood that government sometimes can get in the way of small businesses doing what they do best--creating jobs. Over the years, the Office of Advocacy has had a great deal of success and its hand has been strengthened by further congressional action, such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in 1996. The actions of the office have resulted in billions of dollars in regulatory cost savings for small entities, reducing barriers to market entry and promoting entrepreneurship. This success is due in no small part to the solid beginnings of the Office of Advocacy under the leadership and through the vision of the very first Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Milton D. Stewart. Milt, in his tenure as Chief Counsel from 1978 to 1981, laid the groundwork for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the first White House Conference on Small Business, the Small Business Innovation Development Act, and many other initiatives that are now considered part of the core small business policies within this country. Formerly a small business owner and financier, Milt brought a level of commitment and passion for fostering the entrepreneurial spirit. Early in his life, in a family-owned small business begun and managed by his parents, he acquired great respect for the skill and courage of small business entrepreneurs. During his tenure in service to small businesses, Milt served as President of the National Small Business Association, the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies and the Small Business High Technology Institute. Milt also had significant government service beginning with the Office of War Information during World War II. He also served as special counsel to Governor Harriman of New York and to the New York State Thruway Authority, a Presidential delegate to the second White House Conference in 1986 and Special Counsel to the third White House Conference Commission in 1995. While he was Chief Counsel, his charisma and vision inspired many of those who worked with him and helped develop sound small business policy for our Nation. His involvement in and dedication to the small business community has made a difference in the lives of millions of entrepreneurs. Thanks to him, small firms now have a greater voice in the creation and implementation of the regulations that govern the way they do business. His family and friends can take pride in that legacy and in Milt's tremendous public service. My condolences go out to his wife, Joan, and to his children, grandchildren and great grandchildren on their loss. Together, we mourn the departure of a great man who embodied the American entrepreneurial spirit. He will be greatly missed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, elections obviously are an extraordinary opportunity to listen to the American people, to learn, to debate, and to test ourselves and our ideas. This election was no different. It was an honor to live out a great debate in our country in which we talked about the kind of nation we want to live in and what our responsibilities are to each other and, of course, to future generations. Whatever lessons you learn about a campaign--and there were many--at the core, obviously, are issues. Those issues did not go away on November 3 no matter the results. We are here in the Congress with fundamental responsibilities to continue the fight for those things Americans care about and that matter to the long-term health and welfare of our Nation. I intend to continue to fight on those issues as hard as I did in crisscrossing this great country of ours. At the heart of every issue I heard about from Oregon to Florida, Iowa to Ohio, and every State in between, whether it was affordable health care or good jobs or taxes or energy independence or America's role in the world and her respect, above all, Americans continually expressed their understanding that our ability to meet all of those needs rises and falls with our economy, with the strength of our economy, the quality of the jobs that we create in America, the kind of investments we make in the lives of our children, and the quality of the jobs of the future. All of those choices ride on the fiscal choices we make as a government. Those are lessons we have learned the hard way over the course of the last century or more. That is why I believe, as do others who have spoken in this Chamber during the course of the day, we need to deal candidly and immediately with some sense of urgency with the debt and the debt limit of the United States. We have a fundamental responsibility to restore fiscal responsibility rather than merely voting again to raise the debt limit as if there is an endless credit card at the expense of the American people. Americans struggle to balance their budget. I heard about those struggles all across this country, people who can barely afford to pay their bills, people who have seen their health care go up 64 percent, their tuition go up 35 percent, gasoline prices go up, cost of purchasing drugs go up, and their wages are down. The American people are struggling to be able to pay their bills. Congress is not exhibiting the similar kind of struggle or even effort. The American people sit down at their kitchen tables and they try to play by the rules every single day. Congress seems ready to write new rules whenever it wants. We used to understand the responsibility to future generations. In the 1980s, Washington dug an enormous hole, a deficit hole, and it became apparent to all on Wall Street and all of the corridors of fiscal responsibility and power in America that we needed to make a better set of choices. So we made tough choices in the 1990s to dig ourselves out of that hole. And now here we are again, in 2004, back again with a new hole, deeper, with more grave consequences than at any time in American history. Neither Congress nor the administration has been willing to face up to that reality, even as the consequences grow and stare us in the face. Let me put that in perspective. In less than 4 years, a 10-year $5.6 billion budget surplus was turned into a $2.4 trillion debt. That is the worst fiscal turnaround in our Nation's entire history. Since raising the debt limit last year, the Government has run up more debt than all of the Presidents from George Washington through Ronald Reagan. In fact, almost three-quarters of the entire debt of the United States of America in our 228-year history has been run up during the course of the last three Republican administrations. Taxpayers have been left with a record deficit in both of the past 2 years, up to a record $413 billion for 2004. According to the Congressional Budget Office, we are going to run $300 billion deficits every single year for the next decade, and that is without including one of the President's new proposals made in the course of the last year of the campaign. So the United States is operating a borrow-and-spend Government, continuously stretched by demands for more tax cuts and by more spending. When there is not enough money to pay for those choices, which are voluntary choices, they simply go into debt and put the tab on the national credit card and they send the bill to our kids. It is an economic policy of borrow and spend, and it simply cannot be sustained. After the new debt limit passes this week, and it will, the administration will have added $2.1 trillion to the debt limit in less than 4 years. That amounts to more than $7,200 for every man, woman, and child in the United States, and all of that money must eventually be paid back, or at least partially paid back in significant amounts with interest. The interest payments alone are staggering and depriving us of choices that we ought to be making for long-term investment in our country itself. The Government may spend it today, but Americans ultimately will pay the bill. That means a child born today is going to enter the world owing more than $17,000 when our last and expected debt is totaled up. As everybody knows, our children grow up with a set of expectations about their future that are now impacted extraordinarily by the choices we are making on their behalf, and whether it is a choice to buy a car or home or save for their own families or save for college, all of those are going to be impacted negatively by the unwillingness of Congress to be responsible at that moment. Their ability to save will be eaten away by their share of what this Government is going to have already spent in debt. This could be called a birth tax, a birth tax that is dumped on the back of every American child unwillingly. I think, and I think most persons believe, to saddle our children with this debt is wrong. As Republican Pete Peterson said, the ultimate test of a moral society is the kind of world it leaves to its children. And I think about that concept as we are about to slip our own kids and grandkids a check for our free lunch. I say we are failing the moral test. That is Republican Pete Peterson speaking. And it is not just the mountain of debt that is the problem. It is also where the money comes from. To pay our bills, America now goes cup in hand to nations such as China, Korea, Taiwan, and the Caribbean banking centers. China now holds $172 billion of our Nation's debt. Korea holds $63 billion, Taiwan holds $56 billion, and the Caribbean banking centers hold more than $191 billion. Since 2001 alone, the share of U.S. Treasury debt held by foreigners has risen to 42 percent from 30 percent. It is increasingly dangerous for so much of our Government and our standard of living to be dependent on foreign capital. If foreign investors were to suddenly decide to stop financing our borrowing habits or to see weakness in the American economy, it could have a spiraling impact on our own economy, international currency markets would be shaken, and our economy would quickly follow. If those investors began to withdraw their capital, our financial markets would plummet and interest rates would climb. That will make everything American families need, from a home, to a car, to appliances, to education, all of it, more expensive. It will make it harder for businesses, and especially small businesses, to raise capital and invest in jobs and economic growth. What is more, with so much of our debt owned by other nations, U.S. diplomatic and trade negotiators face increased difficulty in making demands of major creditor nations. How do you go to a country that holds so much of your debt while your economy is closely linked to theirs and start to make the powerful argument about nuclear proliferation or human rights, democratization, and other issues that are of importance and great consequence to our country? It is only a matter of time before America learns the hard way that debt is more than a financial liability, it weakens America's security, and it weakens our diplomacy and our trade. Our budget mismanagement, the negligence of borrow-and-spend policies, leaves us vulnerable to the priorities of foreign creditors. And that is unhealthy and irresponsible. So what do we do about that? Well, we can argue over the cause of the problem, of what made this borrow-and-spend institutionalized approach the reality it is today. But I think it is more important for us now to try to find a solution; that is, to work to find economic policies that are going to create opportunity and demand responsibility. When I first came to the Senate in 1985, the Federal deficit was soaring, out of control, just like it is today. And in the 1980s, the National Debt Clock in New York City became a symbol for a Federal deficit and a debt that were out of control. Back then, many Democrats thought we could continue to spend and to spend without having to pay the bill. And back then most Republicans claimed that if you gave huge tax cuts to the wealthy, they were somehow going to pay for themselves. At the same time, we were lucky to have leadership from a group of reformers on both sides of the aisle, people such as Republican Senators Warren Rudman and Phil Gramm, and Senator Fritz Hollings on the Democratic side. They pushed for a deficit reduction plan that had real teeth in it. They continued that fight until it was finally won. The choice was tough. Fiscal sanity was won by exactly one vote in both Houses of Congress. But finally, in 1997, we finished the job by passing a historic bipartisan balanced budget agreement. It not only balanced the budget for the first time since 1969, but it extended the life of Medicare, it expanded health care for children, and it cut taxes for middle class Americans. Four years ago, the numbers on the National Debt Clock were spinning backwards. Today, in New York, the National Debt Clock has now been turned back on, and the numbers are rising faster than you and I can follow. As Senator Hollings retires from the Senate, I think we need more of that kind of effort that was offered in the 1980s and 1990s in order to find the common ground that he and Senator Rudman brought to this debate almost 20 years ago. It is time again to follow that example. There are a lot of ideas out there. We can end tax cuts that do not create jobs but do create enormous debt. We can find incremental savings by streamlining Government itself. We can reduce or eliminate programs that we simply cannot afford. We could establish a commission to independently evaluate and eliminate corporate subsidies. But more important than any individual proposal is that the White House and Congress make a fundamental commitment to end this policy of borrow- and-spend economics. We need to make economic opportunity and fiscal responsibility a common goal. And we have to live by some rules, rules such as a budget that requires us to pay for what we spend, rules that give the debt limit meaning. Today the debt limit is fanciful. It is just a number on a piece of paper, and Congress raises it any time it wishes. It is no limit at all. I believe we can do these other things. We could make these other choices if we set clear national priorities, if we make the tough decisions, not just about the programs of others but about our own proposals. We have to do this because it is critical to any credible economic plan and to the creation of new, good-paying jobs. An America that ignores our national debt and the deficit will be an America that invites inflation and recession. An America that pays for new initiatives and follows real budget rules will be an America that creates a new era of prosperity and opportunity for all Americans. We know how to do this. We did it in the 1990s. Now it is time to return our Government to that fiscal responsibility and to invest in the future and to create new jobs in America that pay more than the jobs we are losing overseas, and to raise the standard of living for American workers. I will not vote for a borrow-and-spend economic policy when there are better alternatives. Over the last year, in the cities and towns that I was privileged to travel in all across our Nation, I have been reminded again and again of the hopes of the American people and of families that play by the rules and do what is right for their kids and try to do what is right for aging parents and for a Social Security system and a Medicare system that are under increasing pressure and strain. Those Americans are faced with tough choices every day. They expect us, similarly, to make tough choices. I think Washington ought to live by the same rules they do. None of these choices are about numbers and about dollars and statistics alone. They are really about the responsibility we have as one generation to another and, most importantly, the responsibility we have vested in us as Members of the Congress and the need to try to work together and find the unity, as we did in the 1990s, to come up with a solution that acts in the interests of Americans and that does not avoid that fundamental responsibility. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we reserve whatever time there is for the leadership. I do not know if the Senator from Michigan wants to speak now.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Chair Snowe in supporting legislation to keep the Small Business Administration and its financing and counseling assistance available to small businesses. This bill temporarily authorizes the SBA and most of its programs through September 30, 2004. In addition to the temporary extension, this bill includes a provision necessary to bring the administration into compliance with a January 2003 recommendation by the SBA's Inspector General. This change will save the SBA hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing the agency's fiscal and transfer agent for the 7(a) loan program's secondary market program to keep the interest earned on fees lenders pay before they are remitted to the Government. Currently, the SBA does not have that authority. The committee wants the program to continue running smoothly and successfully, and we think this change should accomplish this. Six SBA programs were halted after S. 2700, a similar bill sponsored by Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee Chair Olympia Snowe and myself, passed the Senate on July 20 but did not pass the House prior to the August recess. The six programs reinstated by H.R. 5008 are: the Women's Business Center Sustainability program, the Small Disadvantaged Business, SDB, program, the Preferred Surety Bond, PSB, Guarantee program, the Small Business Development Center, SBDC, Drug- Free Workplace Assistance Grants program, the Very Small Business Concerns program, and the SBA's co-sponsorship authority. With passage of this bill, the committee expects the SBA to move forward on grants for all its programs and certification for minority businesses, and any other activities it has been delaying. And while I am pleased that this bill will extend all of SBA's programs and pilot programs, I am disappointed that the dire and urgent needs of the women's business center program have yet to be fully addressed. Given the abysmal job creation record of this administration, we must aggressively seek and support innovative ways to create jobs, and the women's business center program has a proven track record of doing just that. Last year alone, the women's business center network helped over 100,000 female entrepreneurs grow their businesses, employ more people, and expand economic opportunity. A study recently released by the National Women's Business Council shows that over the past 2 years, while funding for the women's business center program has remained essentially flat, the number of clients served increased by 91 percent and the number of new businesses started went up 376 percent. The study also found that the businesses counseled by women's business centers had an economic impact of $500 million in gross receipts, $51.4 million in profit, and created 12,719 new jobs. With these numbers, it is clear that the women's business center program is a wise investment that will continue to pay dividends to women in business, the Government and our national economy well into the future. As many of my colleagues know, there are currently 87 women's business centers. Of these, 35 are in the initial grant program and 53 have graduated to the sustainability part of the program. These sustainability centers make up more than half of the total women's business centers, but under the current funding formula are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. Without changing the portion reserved for sustainability centers to 48 percent, as the Senate-passed Snowe- Kerry bill, S. 2267, directs, all grants to sustainability centers could be cut in half, or worse, more than 20 experienced centers could lose funding completely. I believe it is very important to pass H.R. 5008 and extend the pilot so that our most experienced centers can continue their good work for women-owned businesses; however, the current funding formula for the Women's Business Center still needs to be updated. As the author of the bill to establish the sustainability program, I am hopeful that my colleagues in Congress will soon come together to fix this problem and secure the women's business center network once and for all. I thank my colleagues for their support of small businesses and for considering immediate passage of this important small business bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues in the Senate--Chair of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Olympia Snowe and former House Small Business Committee Chairman Jim Talent--in support of legislation that will ensure the National Veterans Business Development Corporation is able to continue serving veteran small business owners. In a letter to the Office of Management and Budget on March 19, 2004, the Department of Justice concluded that the Veterans Corporation is a government agency, and therefore subject to the laws, regulations, and guidance applicable to all executive branch agencies. This opinion by the admiration not only goes against congressional intent, but it severely undermines the ability of the corporation to deliver needed assistance to veteran entrepreneurs. As a supporter of the original legislation that established the Veterans Corporation, I can tell you that Congress fully intended the Veterans Corporation to be a private entity and not a Federal agency. This bipartisan legislation simply clarifies the status of the Veterans Corporation and reaffirms Congress's original objective. I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation, which we seek to pass today. Passing this legislation expeditiously will mean that the Veterans Corporation can continue to carry out its congressionally mandated mission and that our veteran-owned small business are able to receive the development assistance they need to start and expand.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join Chairman Snowe in supporting legislation to keep the Small Business Administration and its financing and counseling assistance available to small businesses. This bill authorizes the SBA and most of its programs through the September 17, 2004, which will allow time for the House to complete its work on the SBA's 3-year reauthorization bill, passed by the Senate in September 2003, and for the committee to find common ground with the administration on needed program changes to SBA's venture capital program, the Small Business Investment Company program. In addition to the 8-week extension, this bill includes a provision necessary to bring the administration into compliance with a January 2004 recommendation by the SBA's Inspector General. This change will save the SBA hundreds of thousands of dollars by allowing the agency's fiscal and transfer agent for the 7(a) loan program's secondary market program to keep the interest earned on fees lenders pay before they are remitted to the government. Currently, the SBA does not have that authority. The committee wants the program to continue running smoothly and successfully, and we think this change should accomplish this. With passage of this bill, the committee expects the SBA to move forward on grants for all its programs and certification for minority businesses, and any other business it has been delaying. I am pleased that this bill will extend all of SBA's programs and pilot programs; however I am disappointed that the dire and urgent needs of the Women's Business Center program have yet to be fully addressed. As many of my colleagues know, there are currently 88 Women's Business Centers. Of these, 35 are in the initial grant program and 53 will have graduated to the sustainability part of the program in this funding cycle. These sustainability centers make up more than half of the total Women's Business Centers, but under the current funding formula are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. Without changing the portion reserved for sustainability centers to 48 percent as the Snowe- Kerry bill, S. 2266, contemplates, all grants to sustainability centers could be cut in half, or worse, 23 experienced centers could lose funding completely. In short, this change would simply direct the SBA to reserve 48 percent of the appropriated funds for the sustainability centers, instead of 30 percent, which would allow enough funding to keep open the most experienced centers, while still permitting the establishment of new centers and protecting existing ones. I believe it is not enough to merely extend the Women's Business Center program and not make this critical and bipartisan change. I thank my colleagues for their support of small businesses and for considering immediate passage of this important small business bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I placed in the Record a statement addressing the United States-Australia Free Trade Agreement when the Finance Committee first passed it. Today, I want to offer some additional thoughts on two issues that have arisen since then. As I have said, I believe the agreement will promote our economic interests and job creation here in America. In addition, Australia is an important ally, and we must do all we can to ensure a healthy and vibrant relationship between our two nations. Overall, the agreement deserves our support. However, I am disappointed that the administration has included provisions relating to pharmaceuticals in this agreement. It has been suggested that these provisions might block proposals to reimport drugs or undermine our Medicare and Medicaid programs. These provisions do not belong in this agreement and should not be considered as precedent for future agreements. The record should reflect that the U.S. Trade Representative has confirmed to the Congress that these provisions will not harm our domestic health programs or efforts to reimport drugs. And if the Trade Representative's claims in this matter should turn out to be wrong, I believe that a future administration and the Congress should act immediately to correct the agreement through whatever process is needed. Second, I am disappointed that the Bush administration did not do more to ensure a level playing field for our important beef and dairy farmers. Further, the administration ignored the will of the Senate Finance Committee on this important issue. I was happy to support an amendment in the Finance Committee that helps ensure a level playing field for our domestic beef farmers. Unfortunately, the administration ignored this action and failed to include those enhanced protections in its final proposal. It would seem the administration is content with listening only to itself and a few select industries as it negotiates trade pacts for all of America. This is not consistent with our expectations under fast-track procedures. Finally, as I have stated before, I am disappointed that the Bush administration did not build on the model of the United States-Jordan agreement by including strong and enforceable labor standards in the core of the agreement. Although Australia already has very strong labor rights and an effective enforcement regime, the agreement represents a missed opportunity to set a higher benchmark for future trade agreements by cementing the principle that labor and environmental standards are in the core of all new agreements.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am proud to join family, friends, and colleagues in recognizing and celebrating the incredible life and dedicated work of Steve Collins. His tireless efforts on behalf of our disadvantaged citizens have greatly benefited the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and his fighting spirit is an inspiration to us all. Steve began his career as an advocate for the importance of human services over 25 years ago, and has continued his passion for helping others ever since. His career history includes work at a mental health center for youth, supervision of the Uphams Corner Health Center in Dorchester, case management at Minuteman Home Care, and direction of the Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Massachusetts. Steve's most sweeping impact, however, has come through his work with the Massachusetts Human Services Coalition, where, after years of participation in the Coalition's efforts, he became Executive Director in 1999. Steve comes from a family committed to working for the public good. He is the son of a high school teacher and a newspaper editor, and it was his father who from early on taught him to ``comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.'' Taking this motto to heart, Steve has, for many years, been a voice for the voiceless citizens of Massachusetts by monitoring State policy and budgets and advocating for the vital services that aid the disadvantaged. With unwavering devotion, Steve has embraced his role as David to the sometimes Goliath government bureaucracy, and he has continually won tangible results. Armed with an amazing ability to inject humor into his noble struggles, Steve calls upon governors and legislators to look more critically at the effects of their policies with events like the `` `State of the State We're Really In' Bake Sale.'' And while his criticisms are direct and his position unflinching, Steve has earned the respect of legislators and officials alike. He never compromises his vision and always works around-the-clock to mobilize support for the protection of human services. Steve manages to forever remind us all that every citizen deserves respect, and with that recognition of human dignity comes the obligation to assist those in need. He serves as a voice for the most vulnerable in our society, and the utter importance of his life's work cannot be overstated. There is no more noble goal than to serve others. Steve remains a loyal friend to those in need of his help, and he has never backed down from the challenge of defending them. I am honored by his ceaseless efforts and it is with respect and gratitude that I join in celebrating Steve's life, work, and innumerable contributions.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to announce today my support for the U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement. The United States has a trade surplus with Australia and this agreement will boost our exports still further by eliminating Australian tariffs on our manufactured goods and on several key agricultural exports. Not only does the agreement promote our economic interests and job creation here in America, but Australia is also an important ally, and we must do all we can to ensure a healthy and vibrant relationship between our two nations. I am, however, disappointed that the Bush administration did not build on the model of the U.S.-Jordan agreement by including strong and enforceable labor standards in the core of the agreement. Although Australia already has very strong labor rights and an effective enforcement regime, the agreement represents a missed opportunity to set a higher benchmark for future trade agreements by cementing the principle that labor and environmental standards are in the core of all new agreements. In addition, I am disappointed that the Bush administration did not do a better job negotiating an agreement that would protect our important beef and dairy industries. I was happy to support an amendment in the Finance Committee that helps ensure a level playing field for our domestic beef industry. I am also pleased to announce today my intention to cosponsor the Milk Import Tariff Equity Act, S. 560, a bill to impose tariff-rate quotas on certain casein and milk protein concentrates and help ensure fair competition for our nation's dairy farmers. As we look ahead I want to reiterate that this agreement and others I have supported should not be viewed as models for all future bilateral agreements under negotiation. In particular, it is important to have strong ties with our Central American neighbors. However, the lack of strong and enforceable labor and environmental standards are more serious in the CAFTA agreement because of the poor history the Central American countries have with labor issues. I oppose the current CAFTA agreement, and I hope that over time it can be improved to strengthen labor rights and our ties to our neighbors. The goal is to make sure that trade lifts all people up, that it creates growth with equity. I also understand that last night Majority Leader Frist and Minority Leader Daschle discussed the possibility that the Senate will soon pass an extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act. While some Senators have concerns with AGOA III that must still be resolved, and we should provide adequate time to address those concerns, I would like the record to show that I support this important legislation and would like to see it enacted. Today, the countries of sub-Saharan Africa face some of the world's greatest challenges to export growth, including insufficient domestic markets, lack of investment capital, and poor transportation and power infrastructures. Perhaps most devastating, the region continues to be ravaged by the growing HIV/AIDS pandemic. AGOA provides a door to a brighter future for these nations. By enhancing and enabling economic, legal and political reform, AGOA sets the stage for economic growth and political stability in the region, and helps lift up the lives of the people of Africa. Through our trading relationships, the United States can help spread effective political, economic and legal institutions to regions of the world that are vulnerable to political instability, civil war and global terrorism. Ensuring sub-Sahara African economic integration is one of the surest ways to cultivate new and powerful allies in the war on terror. AGOA is an integral part of a broader partnership with Africa that must also include progress on debt relief and stepped-up efforts to fight the scourage of HIV/AIDS. Given the importance of AGOA to the future we share with Africa, I hope the remaining concerns of my colleagues can be addressed to ensure the passage of AGOA III. Passing this critical extension of AGOA will send a powerful signal to Africa and the world that the United States is committed to extending the benefits of the global economy to all those willing to make the necessary economic, legal and political reforms.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as ranking democrat on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I want to discuss two amendments that were included in the Defense Department Fiscal Year 2005 authorization bill, which passed yesterday. These amendments will ensure that small businesses are included in the analysis of policies that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and industrial base of this Nation. Before I discuss these amendments, however, I would like to thank the committee's chair, Senator Olympia Snowe, for her leadership, and for working hand-in-hand with me on these amendments that are vital to ensuring that small businesses continue to have a voice in the Federal procurement arena. The Department of Defense is the largest purchaser of goods and services in the Federal Government. As a result, they are the driving force behind Federal agencies' ability to meet the Government-wide small business contracting goal of 23 percent. The Defense Authorization Act of 2004 included a provision requiring the administrator of the Office of Federal Procurement Policy, OFPP, to establish an advisory panel to review the laws and regulations regarding the use of commercial practices, performance-based contracting, the performance of acquisition functions across agency lines, and the use of Government- wide acquisition contracts, also known as GWACS. Many small businesses have contacted my office regarding the negative impact these GWACS have been having on their ability to compete for Federal contracts. They are concerned that GWACS are being disproportionately awarded to larger firms, denying small business their fair share of contracts. The amendment, offered by Senators Snowe, Coleman and myself, expands the authority of the advisory panel to include a report on the impact these tools have on small business concerns. It also allows the panel to offer recommendations regarding laws, regulations and policies they believe would afford small businesses increased opportunities to participate in the Federal procurement arena. With respect to the second amendment, I want to commend Senator Byrd for taking the initiative to develop an amendment to ensure that small businesses have a voice with respect to Federal Government work on the future of the national technology and industrial base. The DoD Authorization bill includes a provision establishing a Commission on the Future of the National Technology and Industrial Base. The duties of this 12-member, Presidentially-appointed commission include studying the issues associated with the future of the national technology and industrial base in the global economy. This study is particularly important with respect to the effect of our national technology and industrial base on United States national security and for assessing the future ability of meeting the objectives outlined in the bill. This amendment adds a provision to the study that will require that the role of small business concerns in strengthening the national technology and industrial base is incorporated in the report, due no later than March 1, 2007. Small businesses have proved time and time again that they can provide the goods and services needed by the Federal Government, often more efficiently and more cost effectively than their large competitors. Unfortunately, they are consistently treated as an afterthought or completely ignored when the Federal Government considers procurement policies outside of the Small Business Administration. While the SBA is essential for providing access to capital, training and counseling, and for assistance in gaining access to the Federal marketplace, the vast majority of contracts for goods and services come from other agencies, such as the Department of Defense. Small businesses should be provided the greatest opportunity to compete. When our national defense is in the process of regeneration and transitioning into a military of the future, as it is now, small businesses should be tapped to maximize the innovation, cost savings and efficiency they can contribute to the effort. Small businesses are critical to maintaining and strengthening the overall economy of the Nation and are the cornerstone of the Government's policy of ensuring a diverse supplier base. They should be included when the Government is developing industrial policy and considered in the analysis of policies that affect the procurement strategies or affect the technology and industrial base of this Nation. These amendments do just that. Again, I thank Senators Snowe and Byrd for their leadership and my colleagues for their support for this Nation's small businesses. I would also like to thank Chairman Warner and my colleague on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Levin, the Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services for working closely with us and for making these amendments a part of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. One of my good friends on the other side of the aisle is the senior Senator from Virginia, and I am a good friend with the junior Senator, too. I will say to him that I respect the position he has been put in. I have been here 20 years. I know how this place works and how it negotiates. I know exactly what the conversation was in the well of the Senate earlier. I have no illusions about where we find ourselves now. I am not complaining. I am just here to make my statement of support. I will continue to do what I am doing because I believe we can do better by veterans in this country. I will continue to take that issue to the country over these next days. We have an opportunity to make a choice today. If we don't, then we will continue to talk about this issue over the next months, and the American people will make a choice in November.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thought I might take advantage of this moment while so many of the Republicans are at a White House reception to share a few thoughts about a bill we are obviously not going to be able to vote on today. Sixty years ago, Franklin Roosevelt signed the GI bill. He showed us in doing so how to honor our veterans and he launched the greatest expansion of the middle class in our Nation's history. Never before has an act of legislation and the vision of and the investment by one President done so much for so many Americans. President Roosevelt said that on the day it became law, the signing of this bill ``gave emphatic notice to the men and women in our Armed Forces that the American people do not intend to let them down.'' Today, throughout the day, the Senate has had an opportunity to make history in the spirit of Roosevelt and his commitment to the Greatest Generation. Senator Daschle's amendment, which he tried to bring up earlier, would take an important step toward the full mandatory funding of veterans health care. It would say to the 500,000 veterans closed out of the VA health system in the last 2 years: You are welcome. There is care for you. In the 10th year of its enactment, it will provide care to 3 million veterans who otherwise will be shut out of the system, and it will end the practice of rationing health care for those who have already given so much to this country and who have had an expectation that health care will be there for them. Now, last night, in the normal course of business in our Senate, I was informed by the minority leader that his amendment would proceed today and that he would, under the normal procedures of the Senate, bring it up in an effort to have an early vote. I cancelled my events and I returned here hoping to be able to vote on this important issue. There was no request for lengthy debate. There has been--I know the Senator from Virginia will agree with this--no effort to delay this bill. In fact, the minority leader has expressed every good intention to try to move forward as fast as possible on this bill. Under the normal courtesies of an institution that runs on courtesy, normally, it is absolutely consistent with the rules and traditions of the Senate that time might be made available to a minority leader to offer an amendment and for a vote to be ordered. But, evidently, this is not a normal time for those courtesies in the life of the Senate. I regret that for the Senate and for the country and for veterans. So today we could have acted and have honored 26 million Americans who wore the uniform and provided important funding for them. More than a decade ago, Senator Daschle and I worked to help veterans exposed to Agent Orange receive the recognition, the care, and the benefits they deserved. I am very happy to join him today in supporting this amendment, whenever it will come up, in whatever way I can, whether I am here or not here. I will support this effort in the days, months, and in the years ahead to provide to our veterans the resources they deserve and increasingly have been denied. Yes, there have been increases in the veterans budget, but the test is not whether you have increased the budget, the test is whether you are meeting the need. And the need is not being met. I am honored to stand with the veterans who are backing Senator Daschle's amendment. The VFW, the American Legion, AMVETS, the Paralyzed Veterans Association, Disabled American Veterans, the Blinded Veterans Association, Jewish War Veterans, the Military Order of the Purple Heart, and Vietnam Veterans of America--all of them would have loved to have seen the Senate do its business today when it could have. That is a distinguished group of veterans. A lot of courage, a lot of honor, a lot of kindness comes from the men and women who belong to those organizations. They are Americans whose opinions and guidance I trust. And they deserve to be heard. In this time of great sacrifice, it is even more important that we show our veterans we honor them and respect them. We have to do so with more than words. We have to show them by our actions and our deeds. During a time of war, a time when tens of thousands of Americans are asked to fight and possibly die for their country, our message ought to be loud and clear: When you come home, your country will take care of you because you took care of us. This is an important issue to our country, to our veterans, and to the men and women in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and around the world--today's service members who will be tomorrow's veterans. I have been around here long enough not to worry about these kinds of things. This day will pass and others will come. But Americans will measure how we do our business, and they will measure the seriousness of purpose and the courtesies we extend to each other. So while this vote may not take place while I am here, my support will never wane and my commitment to veterans will never be diminished. I regret whatever rationale has entered into this decision that we cannot proceed for a very simple vote on a very straightforward issue. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I suspect under the health care and benefit plans the Senate gives itself, the Senator won't need this.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is if you did the full funding. This is a compromise that has been worked out which is a lesser amount of money, recognizing the significant amounts that are available. Be that as it may, we are talking over 10 years. The last tax cut for people earning more than $200,000 a year was over $1.2 trillion. So it is a question of where the rubber meets the road. You have veterans over here who served their country who have a need for health care, and you have a lot of wealthy Americans over here who don't particularly have a need for a new tax cut. This is a place for choices. All we are asking is for a choice to be made. I thank the Senator from Virginia and yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, not this particular proposal.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to honor Andrea C. Silbert, founder of the Center for Women and Enterprise, CWE, for her dedicated and tireless work on behalf of women in business. On Friday, after 9 years of outstanding service, Andrea stepped down as chief executive officer for CWE. I am pleased to take this moment to reflect on Andrea's achievements and her contribution to the growing community of women entrepreneurs. Andrea began her career working for Morgan Stanley in New York, but after only a few years, left the financial capital of the world to pursue her interest in community economic development. This led Andrea to spend several years helping the less fortunate in Costa Rica, Colombia and Brazil. While in Latin America, Andrea conducted research on nontraditional exports, taught seminars in financial planning of microloan programs for Women's World Banking, and in Brazil helped disadvantaged young girls with income-generating projects. In 1994, with this invaluable experience and fresh perspective on economic development issues in the United States, Andrea returned to her hometown of Boston with the hope of starting a nonprofit for women entrepreneurs. Her idea was to create a launching pad for all women, regardless of background, to start a business. She was particularly concerned with helping disadvantaged women break the cycle of poverty and become financial self-sufficient. Her efforts led to the establishment of a community-based resource where aspiring women entrepreneurs learn from those who have the experience and knowledge to help others succeed. On October 23, 1995, with financial backing from the Small Business Administration, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the Bank of Boston, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, Andrea started CWE. Under Andrea's leadership and with a budget of $350,000, three employees, and donated space at Northeastern University, CWE developed into a $2.6 million nonprofit employing 25 full-time staff with centers in Boston, Worcester, MA, and Providence, RI assisting nearly 2,000 clients a year. Although CWE has quickly become the model for successful women's business centers, the importance of CWE to women entrepreneurs cannot be summed up with numbers. As more women experience this dream of business ownership, there will continue to be a need for community leaders, like Andrea, who help facilitate the path from poverty to prosperity through enterpreneurship--leaders who can help these women start small businesses, lift themselves up, and give back to their communities. As a past president of the Association of Women's Business Centers and former member of the National Women's Business Council, Andrea has been an advocate for women in business not only in Massachusetts, but across the country. Her testimony before the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship in February of 1997 helped develop the nationwide network of Women's Business Centers and helped build a record of support for continued and increased funding for women who want to start businesses. When Andrea started CWE in 1995, there were only 28 centers in the Women's Business Center network. Today, with Andrea's support, assistance and outreach through the Association of Women's Business Centers, there are 88 centers in 47 States, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, and the Virgin Islands. Last year, these centers helped 106,000 clients, but without the devotion and vision of people like Andrea, many of the women entrepreneurs across the country would not have this invaluable resource. Andrea Silbert has not only been a leader for women in business, but a resounding voice for social change. On behalf of myself and my colleagues on the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I want to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for Andrea's commitment to women entrepreneurs and for her many years of creating new opportunities for women and their communities. Her work through the Center for Women and Enterprise will be greatly missed, but I am confident that her successor, Donna Good, is well suited to continue Andrea's legacy of accomplishment. I want to wish Andrea success and good luck in whatever the future holds.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I join my colleague, Senator Snowe, chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, in passing legislation to safeguard Women's Business Centers funded through the Small Business Administration. This legislation is identical to the Women's Business Center provision I introduced as part of S. 2186, the SBA Emergency Authorization Extension Act of 2004, on March 9, 2004, and it fixes a funding gap that exists for meritorious Women's Business Centers that are graduating from the first stage of the program and entering the sustainability portion. I would first like to thank Chair Snowe for working very closely with me on this issue, as we have for the past year and a half. Senator Snowe has long been an advocate of the Women's Business Centers and was a cosponsor of the original legislation that created the sustainability pilot program in 1999. Now, her support for continuing the nationwide network of Women's Business Centers has been the catalyst for success in the Senate. I commend Chair Snowe for her strong leadership for women in business across this country. I would also like to thank all of the cosponsors of this legislation and of S. 2266, all of whom have shown resounding support for women entrepreneurs and recognize the positive impact the Women's Business Centers have on promoting and supporting women in business and on strengthening our national economy. Second, I want to comment on the Bush administration's proposals to eliminate experienced, efficient, and effective Women's Business Centers in favor of new and untested centers. Unless this legislation can be enacted quickly, the administration will move forward with its proposal, which places in jeopardy experienced Women's Business Centers in 39 States and eliminates assistance for thousands of women in business. While, as this bill demonstrates, I support opening new centers to help women entrepreneurs who do not currently have access to this important assistance, this should only occur when the existing centers, whether in their initial or a later funding period, are fully funded. Women entrepreneurs and their businesses are critically important to our economy and to U.S. job creation, and Women's Business Centers help them succeed. Passing S. 2267 today will send a strong message to the House of Representatives that time is of the essence with respect to this important program, and I hope the House leadership will allow immediate passage of this measure when they are next in session. I would also like to express my dismay that, despite bipartisan support from members of this committee, the Republican majority has opposed helping women entrepreneurs and blocked the provisions of this bill from being included in the two extensions of all SBA programs that have already passed the Senate. Those who favor blocking enactment of these provisions in hopes of closing the most experienced existing Women's Business Centers are potentially depriving thousands of women in business access to much needed assistance. This bill is a bipartisan compromise intended to maintain an effective Women's Business Center network throughout this fiscal year--a compromise that was agreed to by Chair Snowe, myself, and the bipartisan leadership of the House Small Business Committee. It is supported by women's groups across the country. This legislation contains a small adjustment to the Women's Business Center program that updates an outdated funding formula, without added cost to the Treasury. The adjustment changes the portion of funding allowed for Women's Business Centers in the sustainability part of the program to keep up with the increasing number of centers that will need funding this fiscal year. Currently there are 88 Women's Business Centers. Of these, 35 are in the initial grant program and 53 will have graduated to the sustainability part of the program in this funding cycle. These sustainability centers make up more than half of the total Women's Business Centers, but under the current funding formula are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. Without the change to 48 percent, all grants to sustainability centers could be cut in half--or worse, 23 experienced centers could lose funding completely. In short, this change directs the SBA to reserve 48 percent of the appropriated funds for the sustainability centers, instead of 30 percent, which will allow enough funding to keep open the most experienced centers, while still permitting the establishment of new centers and protecting existing ones. In the interest of compromise and prompt enactment of a workable solution, I fully support the formula change to 48 percent, although a change to 54 percent--as introduced as part of my Women's Business Center Safeguard Act, S. 2266--would be needed to fully fund all sustainability centers. I have serious concerns regarding an amendment to our original legislation by the Republican leadership. The amendment would allow the Small Business Administration to award grants at arbitrary and disproportionate levels, instead of following precedent and awarding Women's Business Center grants equally to all qualified and successfully performing centers. I am deeply concerned that the administration may use this authority to shortchange some existing centers in order to use part of the 48 percent reserve funding to open new centers. While this is within the language of the amendment, it is clearly the opposite of the legislation's intent, which is to increase available funds for the most experienced Women's Business Centers so that they remain in operation. To that end, it is my recommendation that the administration use the full 48 percent for sustainability centers and that the Agency award grants at equal, or close to equal, amounts. The committee has been told that providing any sustainability Women's Business Center with a grant less than the minimum grant awarded to sustainability centers in fiscal year 2003 would impede its ability to operate effectively and successfully under the current requirements established by the administration. I am willing to make this compromise because it will give all Women's Business Centers the opportunity to receive funding; however, it is not intended to undercut the funding to any center that has met the SBA's performance standards. As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, I can tell you that when the bill was signed into law, it was Congress's intent to protect the established and successful infrastructure of worthy, performing centers. The law was designed to allow all graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain performance standards to receive continued funding under sustainability grants. This approach allows for new centers to be established--but not by penalizing those that have already demonstrated their worth. It was our intention to continue helping the most productive and well-equipped Women's Business Centers, knowing that demand for such services was rapidly growing. Today, with women-owned businesses opening at one-and-a-half times the rate of all privately held firms, the demand and need for Women's Business Centers is even greater. Until Congress makes permanent the Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot Program, as intended in the Senate-passed legislation, an extension of authority and increase in the portion of appropriated funds available to sustainability centers is vital--not only to the centers themselves, but to the women's business community and to the millions of workers employed by women-owned businesses round the country. This bill is urgently needed now to continue the good work of the SBA's Women's Business Center network, and I urge all of my colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives to show their support for the growing number of women in business by supporting immediate passage of this bill. women's business center program Mr. President, as we pass our legislation, S. 2267, the Women's Sustainability Recovery Act, I ask my colleague from Maine, the chairwoman of the Senate Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, how the SBA is to implement these changes to the Women's Business Center program? I know she has been a leader on this issue, and it is my understanding that she encourages the SBA to fully support sustainability centers at a level that will enable them to operate successfully, before opening new centers.

Mr. KERRY. The committee has been told that many of the Women's Business Centers would be unable to meet minimum performance standards with a significant reduction in grant funding. Does the chairwoman agree that the funding for the sustainability centers last fiscal year would be an appropriate funding level for sustainability centers this year?

Mr. KERRY. I commend Chairwoman Snowe for her persistent efforts on behalf of this legislation and the more comprehensive SBA Reauthorization legislation. Without her strong support and hard work on this issue, the future success of this important assistance for women entrepreneurs would be in jeopardy.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like the record to show my views on the conference on H.R. 3108, the Pension Funding Equity Act. The conference report includes several provisions that I support. Most important among them is funding relief for single-employer defined- benefit pension plans, which will aid 35 million workers. The conference report also closes a huge tax loophole utilized by the wealthiest Americans to shield investment income known as the small insurance company loophole, or Section 501(c)(15). I applaud the work that crafted these provisions. I am particularly pleased that the pensions of hard-working Americans in the auto, steel, airline and other industries will have safer pensions and more secure retirements. I strongly support these provisions, and I can understand why many of my colleagues will cast a vote for this conference report. The problem, and the reason for my opposition to the overall conference report, is that it provides hardly any relief for millions of Americans participating in multi-employer pension plans, despite strong bipartisan support for such relief in the original Senate bill. The Senate bill provided relief to all multi-employer plans, and that bill passed the Senate by the overwhelming vote of 86 to 9. After that, the conferees agreed on a bipartisan basis to limit relief to the 20 percent of plans that most needed it. But then, we have been told, the White House insisted that multi-employer relief be essentially gutted. I regret that the White House and the Republican conferees, on a strictly partisan basis, have done this. It means that nearly 10 million Americans who participate in multi-employer pension plans have been cast aside for no good reason. The Republicans' insistence that multi-employer relief be stripped from the legislation, despite overwhelming Senate support for more widespread relief, also means that America's small businesses that participate in multi-employer plans will receive very little help. As ranking member on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I believe that to ignore small business is to ignore the great engine of our economy. More jobs are created in America by small businesses than any other sector of our economy. Just a week ago, President Bush claimed that ``the small business agenda is vibrant and foremost on our agenda.'' He said that it's important to reduce taxes, so ``small businesses have got more money to invest and to expand.'' But at the same time the White House was pulling the rug out from under thousands of small businesses. More than half of the 65,000 employers in multi-employer plans are small businesses--real small businesses run by real families. So despite the President's rhetoric about small business, the White House has refused to help small business owners provide more secure pensions for themselves and their workers. These small businesses won't be able to invest and expand because they'll be paying excise taxes imposed by the IRS due to the crisis in their pension plans. Mr. President, I support funding relief for single-employer plans. I am very glad that Congress has acted to help Americans participating in those plans. I am also glad to see tax loopholes closed whenever possible. But I regret that the Senate, after voting 86 to 9 to help Americans in both single-employer and multi-employer plans, is now leaving nearly 10 million Americans and thousands of small businesses out in the cold.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to make a statement about a small business bill that the Senate passed last week. I am referring to H.R. 4062, which, among other things, provides a temporary solution to the administration's self-created funding crisis for the SBA's largest small-business lending program, commonly referred to as the 7(a) Loan program. In many ways, the bill is similar to legislation I introduced four weeks ago, S. 2186. For example, it adopts my provision to keep the 504 program operating through the rest of this fiscal year instead of subjecting the 504 borrowers and lenders to another series of disruptive temporary extensions. Similar to my bill, it also lifts the $750,000 cap on loans, lifts the restriction on combination or piggyback loans, gets loans to those small businesses denied 7(a) loans since the program shutdown in January, and extends the operation of the SBA overall, including the Small Disadvantaged Business Program and the Surety Bond program. In general, H.R. 4062 is a step in the right direction and I commend Congressman Manzullo and Congresswoman Velazquez for their work. I do, however, have some concerns about the bill, concerns shared by many in the small business community, and I regret that the Senate Republicans blocked a bi-partisan Snowe-Kerry amendment to address those concerns. For example, H.R. 4062 did not address the pressing need to correct the outdated funding formula for the SBA's Women's Business Centers program. The law needed to be changed before the Agency awards this year's grants because more than 50 Centers around the country are at risk of losing their matching federal money. I had been advocating for this change since I introduced S. 2186 on March 9, and the Snowe-Kerry amendment included my provision. Unfortunately, one or two Senate Republicans objected to the provision and blocked its passage. As for the 7(a) Loan Program, I am concerned about the extent of the fee increases, the lack of data justifying the increases, the rapid expansion of the SBAExpress pilot program, and the precedent that these changes will have on developing a workable approach to next year's 7(a) funding problem created by the President's request for zero funding for fiscal year 2005. The Snowe-Kerry amendment took a much more measured approach to the fee increases, adopting the levels supported in S. 2186 and S. 2193, with flexibility for the SBA to increase the fees up to the levels in the House bill should the need arise to keep the program running for the remainder of the year without restrictions. For example, instead of temporarily charging a lender fee on the commercial portion of a combination or piggyback loan of .5 percent, H.R. 4062 charges 40 percent more, imposing a fee of .7 percent. Senator Snowe devised the discretionary stair-step compromise in our amendment and it was preferred by the lending community. It is unfortunate that the lenders may be required to pay higher fees than necessary to reach the goal: Congress seeks to keep access to 7(a) loans available to small businesses for the rest of this year, fiscal year 2004. The Snowe-Kerry amendment also took a more measured approach in expanding the SBAExpress program. H.R. 4062 includes a controversial provision proposed by the administration that would expand the current SBAExpress reduced guarantee pilot program from loans of $150,000 to $2 million. An increase of 700 percent. The administration contends that the pilot expansion would only be voluntary and therefore harmless if not used. While SBAExpress has worked well for relatively small loans, those averaging around $150,000, lenders have testified before our Committee that SBA Express is not workable for all sizes of loans and that the volume of SBAExpress loans is not likely to increase. In fact, the smallest SBA lenders, community banks, have testified that to mandate SBAExpress would drive virtually all community banks from the program. Yet the administration argues this voluntary authority is necessary because, when combined with other program changes, it would reduce the subsidy rate, thereby stretching the 7(a) loan funding, getting the program closer to their latest program volume projections. This can only be true, however, if the volume of SBAExpress loans increase. To date, the administration has not produced any documentation supporting that contention, and the small business lenders fear that the administration will circumvent the requirement that this be strictly voluntary by showing preferential treatment to lenders who use the SBAExpress program. They believe this will occur in order to steer loans away from the regular program, which has a higher guarantee of 75 percent to 85 percent. Congresswoman Velazquez held strong to including very good provisions aimed at protecting the loan program from such tinkering, and she is to be commended for her effective advocacy. Unfortunately, even with these safeguards, I believe it was premature to enact the administration's SBAExpress proposal until better data could be obtained and analyzed. Further, since H.R. 4062 is a temporary extension of SBA's authority until June 4th, 2004, there would have been time for this and other proposals to be properly vetted and, if appropriate, adopted. Extreme changes like expanding the SBAExpress program 700 percent were driven by the administration. The groups agreed to live with them only because it was better than the alternatives--further reducing the loan cap from $750,000 to $500,000, another shutdown, or the administration's proposal to mandate all loans be made through the 50 percent guarantee SBAExpress program. Let me read to you a few quotes by the small business community that reflect the feelings of many expressed to this Committee: The Independent Community Bankers of America: ``The ICBA did not oppose a short-term fix bill that would open up much needed lending to small businesses, but only because the alternative pushed by the SBA was far worse and would have choked off lenders' ability to continue making SBA loans. We didn't want to punish small business because of the unwillingness of the SBA to ask for the funds they knew were needed to keep the 7(a) program viable. This bill is only a short term Band- Aid. The ICBA continues to oppose the SBA's efforts to squeeze the 7(a) program out of existence and hopes a genuine good faith resolution can be part of the FY 2005 budget.'' The American Bankers Association as quoted in the ``American Banker'' on April 1, 2004: ``The need to avoid an even lower loan-size cap is why the ABA supported the compromise, despite having serious reservations about the expansion of the SBAExpress and the additional fees on lenders. `We are not totally pleased with it, but we're not going to write a letter opposing it', said Mr. [James] Ballentine [Director of Community Development]. `We believe the lenders bent over backwards to restart this program, and we've seen very little movement on the part of the Agency.''' Mr. President, we are all glad that the program is back in business for the rest of the year, particularly for the small businesses that have been hung out to dry since the January shutdown of the program. The delays imposed on the FY2004 fix for the 7(a) loan program were unnecessary. There were several opportunities--bills or amendments-- since March 10th to mitigate the funding shortfall or all together fix it, but they've been blocked or stalled. Mr. President, waiting has a price. Not only to the qualified small businesses waiting for needed loans and for those who had been promised loans in January only to have the administration abruptly impose a crippling loan cap, but also to the taxpayer. If either of the changes Senator Snowe and I had proposed in our bills, S. 2186 and S. 2193, had been enacted as part of H.R. 3195 in mid-March, we could have saved more than $100,000 a day, leveraging at least another $150 million in small business loans in this fiscal year. These delays are fiscally irresponsible. The Republican obstructionists will justify their delay tactics by arguing that the earlier bills did not solve the entire funding problem for the rest of the year. However, there are numerous problems with such a claim. One, time was of the essence for the small businesses that had been shutout since January. Two, no one knows if the administration's estimates are accurate and the confidence in the econometric model that predicts future program costs has gone down as a result of the SBA's latest estimates. For example, how could imposing a fee on piggyback loans of .5 percent, a fee that will generate new income for the program, not offset the costs at all? And, if that is true, how could additional savings from increasing that fee by 40 percent, to .7 percent be only one one-hundredth of one percent? I don't know of one lender who believes that claim. Three, it would have been better to take a step in the right direction and immediately reduce the cost of the program to the extent possible in order to stretch the lending dollars. This option would have allowed for future refinements while saving precious appropriated dollars in the process. Four, there would have been (and still are) several other opportunities to make adjustments later in the fiscal year. With respect to the other important provisions of H.R. 4062, I am glad that the bill includes my measure from S. 2186 that allows the 504 Loan Guarantee Program to operate through the rest of the fiscal year; however, I am very disappointed that, despite bipartisan support, the Republican leadership refused to include a Snowe-Kerry amendment to promote women in business and safeguard one of their only dedicated resources of support: the nationwide network of women's business centers. The Republicans that blocked our amendment--in support of the administration's policy to eliminate experienced, efficient and effective women's business centers in favor of new and untested centers--are potentially depriving thousands of women in business access to much-needed assistance. The Snowe-Kerry amendment, like S. 2267, would have made a small adjustment to the Women's Business Center program that corrects an outdated funding formula, without added cost to the Treasury. The adjustment would have changed the portion of funding allowed for women's business centers in the sustainability part of the program to keep up with the increasing number of centers that will need funding this fiscal year. Without it, all grants to sustainability centers in 39 States could be cut in half--or worse, 23 experienced centers could lose funding completely. Our amendment was a bipartisan compromise intended to maintain an effective women's business center network; a compromise that was agreed to by Chair Snowe, myself, and the bipartisan leadership of the House Small Business Committee. It was supported by women's groups across the country, and it is my sincere hope that my colleagues in Congress will support this change in the very near future. I thank the broad coalition of small business trade associations that have worked on the various bills and supported the provisions in my bill, S. 2186: The trade association of Women Impacting Public Policy (WIPP) and the National Association of Women's Business Owners (NAWBO), the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders (NAGGL), the American Bankers Association, the Independent Community Bankers Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for endorsing the provisions relating to the 7(a) Loan Guarantee Program; WIPP, NAWBO, and the Association of Women's Business Centers for fully supporting the provisions relating to the Women's Business Centers program, as well as the cosponsors of S. 2186. I think anyone who knows of these groups, their members and their leadership, knows that they work very well with both sides of the aisle and with the leadership of our Committee and also the House Committee on Small Business. Working cooperatively in a bipartisan fashion makes good sense and has long been their practice. We all appreciate their work to fix these problems, and for the contribution they make to cultivating small startup and growing small businesses in our communities. Mr. President, I ask that several letters addressing the issue at hand be printed in the Record. I thank my colleagues for their support of small businesses and for considering immediate passage of this bill. The letters follow. March 10, 2004. Dear Representative: Today, as the House prepares to vote on H.R. 3915, we are writing to express our concerns with this legislation. We are very disappointed that it does not include a SBA 7(a) program solution. Without a solution the 7(a) program will not be allowed to create much needed jobs to help our economy. The SBA's flagship 7(a) loan program, the single largest provider of long-term start-up and expansion loans to America's small businesses, has been crippled since the beginning of this fiscal year, when the SBA temporarily shut it down due to a funding shortfall. When the Agency reopened the program a week later, it implemented an artificial loan cap of $70,000--a reduction of more than 50% of the program's statutory loan limit of $2 million--and a prohibition on piggyback loans, which would have allowed lenders to make loans in excess of a loan cap. Businesses who had already submitted applications for loans in excess of the new cap were then told their deals would not qualify for the program. These applicants had gone through months of financial planning and had been promised their loans would be approved. Many had already begun purchasing equipment and hiring employees. If their deals do not get done, many will lose earnest money they had taken from personal savings and retirement plans to inject into these loans. Other potential applicants who would ordinarily qualify for the 7(a) program have since been told there is no alternative to finance their start-up or expansion. The net result to these small businesses is a loss of faith in the U.S. government. The net result to the economy is a loss of jobs. A solution to this lingering problem does exist and it has been communicated to the House Small Business Committee. This proposal has bipartisan support on the Small Business Committee, as well as the support of banking and small business trade groups. The proposed solution would increase fees for lenders to ensure that there is no budget impact. It would maintain the 7(a) program. However, H.R. 3915 ignores this solution. Without a 7(a) solution, approximately $3 billion in loans will remain unavailable to small businesses for the remainder of FY 2004--a net loss of approximately 90,000 jobs. We also fear that if a swift and equitable solution is not enacted, many 7(a) lenders will flee the program, leaving a void in availability of the long-term financing that is so crucial to small businesses' success. We request that Congress bolster economic recovery and the small businesses that drive it by enacting a 7(a) program solution that has the full support of Congress and the industry. Sincerely, American Bankers Association. America's Community Bankers. Independent Community Bankers of America. National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders. The Financial Services Roundtable.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Coast Guard Authorization Act authorizes nearly $15 billion in funding for the Coast Guard to carry out its mission for 2 years. This represents a significant increase in funding over previous years, and will go far to support an agency that has both civilian and homeland security responsibilities. The bill also includes funding for the Deepwater program, funding for port security measures, provisions aimed at preventing oil spills and helping fishermen, and protections for marine resources. Let me begin by discussing the authorization included in the bill. The fiscal year 2005 budget authorization is 4 percent higher than what the President has requested. This difference represents $327 million, and the authorization itself is a $700 million increase over what the Congress appropriated for the current fiscal year. The funding increases in the bill will help the Coast Guard meet all of its missions. The Coast Guard has stretched its resources dramatically since September 11, and traditional missions such as enforcement of fishing and marine resource laws as well as search and rescue missions are still below pre-September 11 levels. This legislation includes over $700 million for both fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 for the Coast Guard's Deepwater program, well over the $500 million in fiscal year 2004 and the $678 million in fiscal year 2005 requested by the President. Deepwater is an important program that will allow the Coast Guard to purchase new ships, planes, and navigation equipment and integrate those resources into its existing infrastructure. This legislation also addresses security at our ports. Unfortunately, many of our Nation's ports and waterways remain vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Implementation of the Maritime Transportation Security Act is expected to take years. Therefore, it is important that the Coast Guard, the main Federal agency charged with port security, have adequate resources to meet current homeland security responsibilities. The bill includes $70 million to assess port security plans as well as $100 million for expenses that the Coast Guard incurs when the Government issues homeland security alerts. The bill also authorizes $36 million for three new maritime safety and security teams, MSSTs. The MSSTs have already become a vital security force for many of the Nation's busiest ports. Major port cities such as New York, Boston, and Los Angeles have benefitted from the deployment of MSSTs, and I am pleased that this legislation will allow other ports to receive the same level of protection. The bill also includes $40 million for the automatic identification system, AIS. Mandated by the Maritime Transportation Security Act, the AIS will allow the Coast Guard to track and monitor certain vessels that could pose a threat to port security. It is essential that this system operates at full capacity. The fiscal year 2005 authorizations include an overall 10-percent increase for operating expenses and general capital costs to ensure that port security priorities continue to be funded at appropriate levels. I am pleased that the bill includes a number of environmental provisions, aid for fishermen affected by oilspills, and protections for living marine resources. In response to last year's oilspill in Buzzards Bay, MA, we included in this bill a provision that requires the Coast Guard to study the feasibility of speeding up the deadline for companies to start using double-hull tankers to transport oil. Also in the bill is a mandate for the Coast Guard to issue a report outlining the cost and benefits of requiring vessels to have electronic navigational equipment on board. In addition, to ameliorate the effects of oilspills on fishermen, we added language to the bill that will allow fishermen to receive loans from the oilspill liability trust funding during the period immediately following an oilspill. The bill also addresses the issue of ship strikes of one of the most endangered whales in the world--the North Atlantic right whale. There are only about 300 individuals left in this entire species, and ship strikes are the No. 1 cause of mortality. While lobstermen and other fishermen in the Northeast have shouldered significant regulatory requirements to avoid entanglement of these whales in fishing gear, no actions have been taken to address the risks from ship strikes. The bill would require the Coast Guard to undertake studies to examine options for minimizing vessel strikes of North Atlantic right whales in accessing ports where this is an issue. In addition to these studies, the bill would require the Coast Guard to submit a report to Congress on the effectiveness and costs of such measures. In conclusion, we have crafted a balanced bill that will benefit the Coast Guard and enhance our domestic security. The Congress has a responsibility to oversee the Coast guard and provide it with direction and resources. With this bill, we have met that responsibility. I urge my colleagues to support it. Mr. President, I would like to acknowledge the hard work of Senator McCain, Senator Hollings, and Senator Snowe in helping to draft this legislation. I respect and appreciate their dedication to these issues. Thank you.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today as ranking member of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I offer the Women's Business Center Safeguard Act, legislation to fix a funding gap that exists for the most experienced meritorious women's business centers. I would first like to express my sincere disappointment that the Republican majority refused to include the bipartisan women's business center compromise that was agreed to by Chair Snowe and the bipartisan leadership of the House Small Business Committee, and, in the best interest of women business owners across the country, I urge them to reconsider. I also want to comment on the Bush administration's proposals to eliminate experienced, efficient, and effective women's business centers in favor of new, untested, and inexperienced centers. Moving forward with the administration's proposal and failing to correct this funding gap immediately would jeopardize women's business centers in 39 States and eliminate assistance for thousands of women in business. While, as my bill demonstrates, I support opening new centers to help women entrepreneurs who do not currently have access to this important assistance, this should only occur when the existing centers, whether in their initial or a later funding period, are fully funded. The administration's policy to sacrifice successful, experienced centers in the interest of opening new centers is unwarranted and unwise. Women entrepreneurs and their businesses are critically important to our economy and to U.S. job creation, and women's business centers help them succeed. I intend to continue to advocate on their behalf. This legislation contains a small adjustment to the Women's Business Center program that updates an outdated funding formula, without added cost to the Treasury. The adjustment changes the portion of funding allowed for women's business centers in the sustainability part of the program to keep up with the increasing number of centers that will need funding this fiscal year. In short, this change directs the SBA to reserve 54 percent of the appropriated funds for the sustainability centers, instead of 30 percent, which will allow for full funding of the most experienced centers, while still allowing for new centers and protecting existing ones. Currently there are 88 women's business centers. Of these, 35 are in the initial grant program and 53 will have graduated to the sustainability part of the program in this funding cycle. These sustainability centers make up more than half of the total women's business centers, but under the current funding formula are only allotted 30 percent of the funds. Without the change to 54 percent, all grants to sustainability centers could be cut in half--or worse, 23 experienced centers could lose funding completely. Cutting funding for these, our most efficient and successful centers, would not only be detrimental to the centers themselves, but also to the women they serve, to their local communities, to their States, and to the national economy. As the author of the Women's Business Centers Sustainability Act of 1999, I can tell you that when the bill was signed into law, it was Congress's intent to protect the established and successful infrastructure of worthy, performing centers. The law was designed to allow all graduating Women's Business Centers that meet certain performance standards to receive continued funding under sustainability grants. This approach allows for new centers to be established--but not by penalizing those that have already demonstrated their worth. It was our intention to continue helping the most productive and well-equipped women's business centers, knowing that demand for such services was rapidly growing. Today, with women-owned businesses opening at one-and-a-half times the rate of all privately held firms, the demand and need for women's business centers is even greater. Until Congress makes permanent the Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot Program, as intended in Senate-passed legislation, an extension of authority and increase in sustainability funds is vital--not only to the centers themselves, but to the women's business community and to the millions of workers employed by women-owned businesses around the country. This bill is necessary to continue the good work of SBA's Women's Business Center network, and I urge all of my colleagues to support it and its inclusion as part of any extension of SBA programs. I ask that the full text of this bill be printed in the Record. The bill follows.