John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered yesterday by Senator Bill Nelson and several others to increase funding for emergency relief in Africa by $600 million in fiscal year 2003. I could not be present for the vote on this amendment, but I would have voted for it if I were able to. This additional funding is urgently needed to address a mounting famine that has put an estimated 38 million people at risk for starvation in Ethiopia, Eritrea, and six southern African countries. Because the President submitted his fiscal year 2003 budget request nearly a year ago--before the famine reached its current magnitude--the omnibus appropriations bill we are now debating does not provide adequate resources both to counter this humanitarian crisis and to fund ongoing programs in Africa to assist poor and displaced persons. The United States has generally provided more than half of the food aid required to address this kind of crisis. The proposed $600 million in additional funding is needed to reach the one-half mark and forestall further destruction in southern and eastern Africa. The ripple effects of this kind of famine go far beyond the millions of Africans who are directly affected. Because severe famine can force families to leave their homes--sometimes even their countries--in search of better conditions and to resort to other desperate measures, it can cripple economic progress and threaten political stability throughout the affected regions. Ultimately, a crisis of this magnitude can imperil even our own security. We have an obligation to the people of Africa and to our own citizens to provide the resources necessary to address this emergency. emerald ash borer infestation

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the amendment offered by Senator Mikulski that would prevent Federal agencies from establishing, applying, or enforcing any numerical goal, target, or quota for the contracting out of Federal jobs. The Mikulski amendment is identical to language that passed the House by a large, bipartisan margin and was included in the House fiscal year 2003 Treasury appropriations. I was very troubled by the Office of Management and Budget's directive to contract out 850,000 jobs over the next 3 years. I was concerned because the OMB privatization quotas encourage agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs without public-private competition, which is unfair both to the affected employees as well as the taxpayers. In fact the OMB quotas force agencies to privatize Federal employee jobs that even Federal managers believe should continue to be performed by reliable Federal employees. Senator Mikulski's amendment is reasonable and fair. It allows for the contracting out of Federal employee jobs, but it prevents jobs from arbitrarily being privatized. Instead it will ensure that thoughtful criteria are established before Federal employee jobs are given away. This is an issue of fundamental fairness, and about establishing a fair and reasonable process. I strongly support Senator Mikulski's amendment and I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I offer, on behalf of myself and Senators Snowe, Landrieu, Lieberman, and Levin, an amendment to H.J. Res. 2, the fiscal year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations resolution. The purpose of the amendment is to reverse severe budget cuts to the SBA's largest small business lending program, commonly referred to as the 7(a) loan program. As part of the administration's fiscal year 2003 budget request, the President under-funded the program by 56 percent, leaving small businesses short than $6 billion in critical loan dollars. In order to restore over a billion dollars of that short-fall, this amendment would transfer unused funds from SBA's STAR loan program to the 7(a) loan program. As my colleagues may recall, the STAR program was a temporary loan program that I established with Senator Bond to help small businesses across the Nation hurt by terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Thousands of small businesses nationwide were helped by the $3.6 billion in loans already made available through the STAR program, and I thank Senators Hollings and Byrd for helping me to secure the funding. The authorization for the STAR loans has expired and rather than let the remaining money lapse, we should re-allocate it to help small businesses have access to regular 7(a) loans. Just as we took care of small businesses hurt by 9/11, it is time to turn our attention to those who need financing in this down economy when banks are restricting capital to small businesses. Not only is the 7(a) loan program SBA's largest lending program to small businesses, but it is also the single, largest source of long-term capital available to small businesses in this country. As banks have cut back on lending to small businesses, demand for SBA's loan programs have grown by more than 16 percent, and this is one of the few sources for working capital loans. As I said a few minutes ago, by reprogramming this money, we will be able to leverage over a billion dollars in loans to small businesses, thereby stimulating the economy and creating and preserving jobs. Further, transferring this money would be budget neutral and has the support of OMB. There is much at stake for small businesses in all of our States. In my home State of Massachusetts, if we implement the President's budget as requested, small businesses stand to lose $121 million in loan dollars and almost 3,700 jobs. As a nation, we would lose $6.2 billion in loans, which translates into 189,000 jobs either lost or not created. In this economy, we can not afford to lose any more jobs or hinder job creation. This amendment was part of a more comprehensive proposal that Senator Bond and I put forth last Congress. One part was to use more accurate data and a more predictive cost model, and the other was to transfer money from the STAR program to the 7(a) loan program. That legislation had the bipartisan support of then-Budget Committee Chairman Conrad, then-ranking Member Domenici and Senators Landrieu, Snowe, Harkin, Hollings and Byrd. It was approved by the Office of Management and Budget and voted out of the Senate by unanimous consent. Unfortunately, politics kept it from passing the House. This Congress, our incoming Chair, Senator Snowe, has quickly taken up where Senator Bond left off, re-introducing last year's bill, now S. 141, to correct the program's subsidy rate model. I thank her for her swift work and for joining me today in offering this amendment. I ask all my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment. In closing, I want to thank Chairwoman Snowe, Senator Bond, Senator Conrad, Senator Domenici, Congressman Manzullo, and Congresswoman Velazquez for their previous and continued efforts in this fight for small businesses. In addition, I would like to thank the countless small business groups, from NAGGL and NADCO to the small business coalition lead by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which included among many others, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Small Business United, and the American Bankers Association, for their hard work and support with regard to this matter.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to voice my support today for Senator Daschle's amendment which provides emergency disaster assistance for crop and livestock producers who have suffered losses during the 2001 and 2002 agriculture production years due to natural disasters. For U.S. farmers and ranchers, the current production disaster is multifaceted. In many areas, drought has decimated crops and has reduced water supplies available for livestock. In other regions, farmers are experiencing crop destruction and reduced yields and quality due to flooding and an increased incidence of crop pests and diseases. Especially hard hit are the specialty crops such as apples, cherries, and grapes in the Great Lakes region, the Eastern States and the Pacific Northwest that suffered frost, freeze, and drought damage this season and adverse weather in 2001. The negative economic impact of natural disasters to American agriculture and rural communities continues to grow. In my home State of Massachusetts, the cranberry industry suffered $10 million loss in 2002 from drought alone. The situation across the Nation is the same: our farmers are in trouble and Congress needs to step in and provide assistance. It is for those reasons I support the Daschle amendment. Unlike the Cochran amendment, it provides equitable disaster assistance to those producers--crop and specialty crop alike--who were impacted by disasters.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, right now the American people are dealing with tough economic times. Over 1 million Americans have exhausted their unemployment benefits without finding a job, more than 30,000 of those people are from my home State of Massachusetts. Can you imagine how hopeless these workers are to be at the end of their benefits with no job? I've heard from so many of my constituents recently about the great difficulties they're having finding jobs and how scared they are about providing for their families when their benefits run out. These are people who are desperate to work, but they've found that jobs are simply not available right now. In fact, there are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than in March 2001 when the current economic downturn began, and the number of jobs in the economy has been stagnant for several months. I am pleased that Senator Reed has offered an amendment to the omnibus appropriations bill to provide additional weeks of benefits to the long-term unemployed, to those 1 million American workers whose benefits have already expired. I am a cosponsor of Senator Reed's amendment, although unfortunately I will not be present to vote in support of the motion to waive the budget act today. When we passed S. 23 on the first day of the 108th Congress, we extended benefits for one group of the unemployed, but ignored this equally deserving group. It is totally unfair to me that we have not provided benefits to the long- term unemployed, particularly when we know that the current unemployment rate of 6.0 percent is the highest rate in nearly 9 years and is higher than when the Temporary Emergency Unemployment Compensation program was created. Twenty percent of America's unemployed have been without work for more than twenty-six weeks and that percentage is still growing. We must not leave the long-term unemployed and their families with no where to turn. I urge my colleagues to support the Reed amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Harkin amendment to restore funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program to its fiscal year 2002 level. I am concerned that the omnibus appropriations bill before us eviscerates the Byrne program. The Byrne program provides a flexible source of funding to State and local law enforcement agencies to help fight crime by funding drug enforcement task forces, more cops on the street, improved technology, and other anticrime efforts. Massachusetts received over $11.5 million in Byrne funding last year. On countless occasions I have heard from law enforcement officers from Massachusetts about the value of the Byrne program to their crime-fighting efforts. The war against terror has placed unprecedented demands on State and local law enforcement to prevent terrorist attacks and to respond to an attack should one occur. But fighting the war on terror is not the only job that we expect police officers to do. We also expect them to combat the prevalence of drugs in our cities and rural communities, we expect them to keep our homes and families safe from thieves, and we expect them to make us feel secure when we walk through our neighborhoods. We are well aware that the States are facing a severe fiscal crisis, some $75 billion collectively, what priority does it reflect to cut back on support to local law enforcement in this budget and security environment? A wrong-headed one, in my estimation. This amendment is supported by the National Association of Police Organizations, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, and the National Governor's Association. I am proud to stand with these organizations in support of the Harkin amendment to restore funding to the Byrne amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Schumer's amendment to add $150 million for port security research grants to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. I cannot be here for the vote, but if I were I would vote in favor of this amendment. We passed a comprehensive maritime security bill at the end of the last Congress because in the aftermath of September 11 it became apparent that our Nation's ports were vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Our bill provided for the creation of a port security infrastructure that will significantly increase the level of security at ports and maritime facilities across the country. However, the bill was not funded through the appropriations process and a funding mechanism has yet to be been decided. The Schumer amendment would immediately release grant money to laboratories and universities for the research and development of technologies which will help detect the presence of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons at our Nation's ports, something we addressed in the Maritime Security Act but have yet to implement. There is no doubt that we will need to develop new technologies and improve upon existing detection technology if we are to fully secure our ports against the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. There are simply not enough customs inspectors to search every piece of cargo that comes into the United States. We will need to have equipment that can scan large cargo containers and detect explosives, chemical and biological agents, and any other substance that could conceivably cause harm. We will also need improved technology that will help officials track, and keep track, of cargo containers from their point of origin to their point of destination. Calling upon our scientists and educators to develop new security technologies is essential if we are to effectively wage the war on terrorism. Given the inadequacies that we know exist in our port security, I do not believe that we can afford to wait around to act. Senator Schumer's amendment is critical to the future of maritime security, and I urge my colleagues to vote for its passage.

Mr. KERRY. I strongly support the Byrd amendment to strike title VI of division N from the omnibus appropriations bill. Title VI includes a provision which would impose a 1.6 percent across-the-board reduction on all domestic spending. These cuts follow an earlier $9.8 billion reduction in domestic spending from the Senate Appropriations Committee passed spending bills. Together, these cuts will reduce domestic spending by more than $20 billion and will force punitive cuts in veterans health care, housing, education, homeland security, highway funding, Amtrak, the National Institutes of Health, Head Start, WIC and other important national priorities. Today, we are not meeting our promises to our veterans. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, has consistently received inadequate resources to meet rising medical costs and a growing demand for its health services. In November 2001, Secretary of Veterans Affairs Principi identified a $400 million funding shortfall for fiscal year 2002. As a result of this shortfall, more than 300,000 veterans throughout the country are on waiting lists for medical care, and many must wait 6 months or longer for an appointment to see medical staff. Although Congress provided $417 million for veterans health care as part of the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental spending bill, passed in July 2002, the President agreed to spend only $142 million of the approved funds. In addition to the fact that the VA health system must now overcome the severely inadequate amount provided in fiscal year 2002, the VA has also been operating at last year's funding level since the onset of the 2003 fiscal year in October. This funding crisis has forced the VA health system to resort to short-term fixes, such as discontinuing outreach activities in an effort to reduce enrollment and instituting new regulations that require the rationing of health care. Moreover, the VA has already reduced services at a number of facilities throughout the country and has closed some facilities altogether. It is crucial for the VA to receive an increase in fiscal year 2003 medical care funding provided in both the Senate and House Appropriations Committee bills. Instead, the Republican majority has decided to impose an additional 1.6 percent reduction to the already inadequate levels of funding for veterans services. Today, our Nation is facing an affordable housing crisis. For thousands upon thousands of low-income families with children, the disabled, and the elderly, privately owned affordable housing is simply out of reach. Recent changes in the housing market have further limited the availability of affordable housing across the country, while the growth in our economy in the last decade has dramatically increased the cost of the housing that remains. The Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, estimates that more than 5 million American households have what is considered worst case housing needs. Since 1990, the number of families that have worst case housing needs has increased by 12 percent, that is 600,000 more American families that cannot afford a decent and safe place to live. Despite the fact that more families are unable to afford housing, we have decreased Federal spending on critical housing programs such as the Public Housing Capital Fund, elderly housing, and Public Housing Drug Elimination Grants since fiscal year 1995. Earlier this month HUD also announced plans to dramatically reduce the amount of funding available for the operation of public housing by up to 30 percent. This would cost the city of Boston approximately $13 million in housing funding during fiscal year 2003. This additional across-the-board cut would impose even further cuts in the operation of public housing. This is simply unacceptable to those who depend upon housing assistance. These are just two examples of the arbitrary cuts will be imposed on every domestic program, many of which already are inadequately funded. That is why I strongly support the Byrd amendment and urge my colleagues to support it as well.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support Senator Byrd's amendment to add $5 billion in homeland security funding to the omnibus appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003. I cannot be here for the vote, but if I were, I would vote in favor of the amendment. The Byrd amendment provides funding for several critical initiatives aimed at strengthening our efforts to protect America and its interests. It is unbelievable to me that the President can propose a $674 billion tax cut, but can't make a sufficient investment in homeland security. When I look at the important programs that this amendment would support, I can't fathom that the Senate won't pass it. It is imperative that we provide the resources necessary to protect this Nation. Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security infrastructure and we should not squander a single day addressing them. An independent task force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' We must act to ensure that the functions needed to better protect our borders, coasts, cities, and towns have sufficient resources to do so. The Byrd amendment would provide more money to states and localities to implement President Bush's smallpox vaccination plan, to make the radio equipment of first responders interoperable, and provide emergency planning and training for terrorist attacks. It would make critical investments in our preparedness for biological attack. It would also fortify our borders by funding such things as additional Coast Guard patrol boats and improvements to the INS entry and exit system. The Byrd amendment also fully funds the newly created Transportation Security Administration so that our airports are made as secure as possible. Mr. President, last year I was very involved in the development of the new port security law, and I am pleased that the Byrd amendment includes funding to help implement these new rigorous security requirements for our ports. Finally the Byrd amendment provides resources to secure nuclear weapons and materials and conduct vulnerability assessments for energy supply and distribution systems. The funding that the Byrd amendment provides for the Transportation Security Administration is critical to our national security. Given the vulnerabilities that we know exist in our port and airport security, I cannot imagine that this body would opt to provide insufficient funding to address these problems. The need to fully fund the TSA cannot be overstated; installing baggage screening equipment in the top forty U.S. airports alone is expected to cost billions, and to date only one major airport has installed the necessary equipment mandated by the Aviation Security Act. Mr. President, we cannot hope to maintain the confidence of the American people in our ability to secure the nation's transportation system if we fail to adequately fund the legislation we've passed to achieve that goal. These investments are essential if we are to be fully protected from those who threaten our freedom. Our task is to make America more secure. We cannot allow the Republican omnibus appropriations bill to undermine the war on terrorism and we must pass the Byrd amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Kennedy- Harkin amendment to increase education funding by $6 billion in Fiscal Year 2003. I cannot be present for the vote on the Kennedy-Harkin amendment, but I would vote for it if I were Present. The increased accountability and teacher quality requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act necessitate a significant investment in our schools, but the omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate falls short of the needed investment. The Kennedy-Harkin amendment is critically important to ensuring that all children can learn to high standards, which is the goal of the No Child Left Behind Act. States, schools, and districts are diligently working to meet the stringent requirements of the new law at a time when they are facing shrinking education budgets due to the state fiscal crisis. Right now states are facing a shocking $75 billion budget deficit. Twelve states cut K-12 education spending last year and another eleven are poised to do so this year. The Kennedy-Harkin amendment would increase funding for the Title I program--the education program that provides resources for the most economically disadvantaged students in the country--to the level that was authorized for Fiscal Year 2003. The omnibus appropriations bill includes an increase of only $1 billion, falling $4.65 billion short of the level authorized by the No Child Left Behind Act. The Department of Education announced that 8,652 schools will begin the 2002-2003 school year ``in need of improvement.'' How will these schools be able to perform Mr. President, if they are not provided with the resources to attract and retain high quality teachers and to implement reforms that will ensure all children can learn to high standards? As I stated many times during debate on the No Child Left Behind Act, tough accountability requirements without sufficient resources to meet the requirements is cruel to students, teachers, administrators, and parents and ultimately it will undermine the success of the education law. The Kennedy-Harkin amendment would also provide $1.35 billion to increase the maximum Pell grant award from $4,100 to $4,500. Pell grants are extremely important in helping financially needy students enroll and stay in college, many of whom would not otherwise have the opportunity to attend college. According to Empty Promises, a report released in June 2002 by the congressionally-mandated Advisory Committee on Student Financial Assistance: ``. . . this year alone due to record-high financial barriers, nearly one-half of all college- qualified, low- and moderate-income high school graduates--over 400,000 students fully prepared to attend a four-year college--will be unable to do so, and 170,000 of these students will attend no college at all.'' If we are to reduce income inequality in this country, then we must support students who are academically prepared to attend college, but do not have the financial means to do so on their own. The Kennedy-Harkin amendment is about opportunity. The chance for economically disadvantaged students to succeed in school, and the chance for those same students to attend college. I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the American people are facing difficult economic times. The unemployment rate is at a 9-year high, and a growing number of both skilled and unskilled American workers are left without jobs and without a way to provide for themselves and their families. I am so pleased that we finally passed S. 23 on Tuesday, which provides a 5-month extension of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and that the House passed it also. I believe that it was critical for the Congress to address the issue or expiring unemployment insurance benefits on the very first day of the 108th Congress. Actually, if we had had it our way, my Democratic colleagues and I would have delivered this aid to unemployed workers last year before 780,000 workers had their benefits cut off. At the end of the last Congress, Democrats asked for unanimous consent eight times to pass a bill that would provide benefits for workers who were cut off from their benefits on December 28, for workers who had not yet received the extension, and for workers who had run out of their State and Federal benefits and had not yet found a new job. But each time Republicans objected to this proposal. An agreement was finally reached between Senate Democrats and Republicans in December, but the Senate agreement was rejected by House Republicans. S. 23 will help millions of Americans, 91,000 in Massachusetts alone, but there is one deserving group that it won't help, the more than 1 million unemployed workers who have already exhausted their State and Federal unemployment benefits. On Tuesday, Senator Reed asked that the Senate not adjourn until it address the issue of unemployment insurance benefits for workers who have already exhausted their benefits. Unfortunately, I was not present for Tuesday's vote because I was detained at a doctor's appointment, but had I been present I would have voted in favor of continuing the debate until we addressed the needs of the long-term unemployed. Over 2 million people's benefits have expired since the passage of the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Program in March 2001. Of those 2 million, 1 million are still working hard to find jobs. There are 1.5 million fewer jobs today than there were in March 2001 and the economy remains weak. I have heard from so many of my constituents about how difficult it is to find jobs in this economic climate. Twenty percent of America's unemployed have been without work for more than 26 weeks, and the percentage is still growing. We must not leave the long-term unemployed and their families with no where to turn. We have taken an important first step to help unemployed workers. But we have not done nearly enough. And I will continue to urge my colleagues to take action to help the long-term unemployed.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to offer a few comments concerning H.R. 4883, a bill to reauthorize the Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998. I am especially supportive of this bill's inclusion of language to reauthorize the Commissioned Corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA Corps. The NOAA Corps plays a very important role in NOAA and to our Nation. The NOAA Corps is the smallest of the seven uniformed services of the United States. The service, consisting of approximately 299 commissioned officers, is an integral part of NOAA, an agency under the U.S. Department of Commerce. The NOAA Corps traces its roots back to the former U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, which dates back to 1807 and President Thomas Jefferson. The NOAA Corps today provides a cadre of professionals trained in engineering, earth sciences, oceanography, meteorology, fisheries science, and other related disciplines. The officers serve in assignments within the five major Line Offices of NOAA: National Ocean Service, NOS; National Weather Service, NWS; National Marine Fisheries Service, NMFS; Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, OAR; and National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service, NESDIS. Officers operate ships, fly aircraft into hurricanes, lead mobile field parties, manage research projects, conduct diving operations, and serve in staff positions throughout NOAA. In addition they conduct hydrographic surveys along our nation's coast in order to make our waters safe for marine commerce. As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee allow me to explain a little about NOAA. NOAA provides timely and precise weather, water and climate forecasts, to monitoring the environment, to managing fisheries and building healthy coastlines, to making our nation more competitive through safe navigation and examining changes in the oceans, NOAA is on the front lines for America. In hours of crisis, NOAA employees have been found issuing the tornado warnings that saved hundreds of lives from a deadly storm, flying into the eyes of hurricanes to gather information about possible landfall, fighting to free three grey whales trapped in the ice, fielding a massive scientific operation on the shores to guide the comeback from an oil spill, and monitoring by satellites the movement of hurricanes and other severe storms, volcanic ash and wildfires that threaten communities. In 1882 the U.S.S. Albatross, the first government research vessel built exclusively for fisheries and oceanographic research, launched both a future for NOAA's research programs and a fleet of research vessels. Today, NOAA scientists along with their university partners, work to better understand the world in which we live. NOAA research is where much of the work is done that results in better weather forecasts, longer warning lead times for natural disasters, new products from the sea, and a greater understanding of our climate, atmosphere and oceans. NOAA research is done not only in what many would consider traditional laboratories, but also aboard ships, aloft in planes, and beneath the sea in the world's only undersea habitat. NOAA research tools can be as high-tech as supercomputers or as basic as rain gauges. The officers of the NOAA Corps operate NOAA's fleet of research vessels and aircraft. Those of us on the Commerce Committee like to think of NOAA as the little agency that does a lot. The NOAA Corps is an integral part of the NOAA team that brings all of these valuable services to the American public.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise this evening as Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee to offer a few remarks concerning H.R. 1989, to which I am offering a Senate amendment, along with the ranking member of the Subcommittee Ms. Snowe. The Senate amendment includes a number of provisions that will help fishermen around this country. Our amendment contains two important provisions that will help identify and address overcapacity in our fisheries. The first is a report from the Secretary of Commerce identifying the top 20 fisheries in the United States with excess capacity. In order to restore and maintain sustainable fisheries, we need to ensure we understand and develop a plan to address overcapacity that may be undermining our efforts to rebuild our stocks. By ranking the fisheries with the most serious capacity problems, we can target resources at reducing capacity in these fisheries and allow some fishermen to retire with dignity. This amendment also includes a provision that would require the Secretary of Commerce in coordination with the New England Fisheries Management Council to provide technical assistance and use all tools at his disposal--including the Coastal Zone Management Act planning procedures--to help industry develop a capacity reduction program for New England groundfish. Funding has already been provided for such an industry-funded buyout, but now our industry must consider what kind of plan makes sense for our fishing communities. We simply have too many fishermen chasing too few fish in New England. I know the entire New England delegation has enormous sympathy for our hard-working fishermen, and we want to help these families as they struggle against a tide of regulations. The first step to assisting these families is to evaluate and plan for the opportunities that will be available once our fisheries are rebuilt. Then people can make some informed decisions about retiring from the fishery. It is my hope that the Secretary in coordination with New England Fishery Management Council can develop such a plan. This amendment also contains a provision that clarifies the flexibility that Congress provided the Secretary of Commerce in the 1996 reauthorization of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Current law requires stocks identified as overfished to be rebuilt within 10 years, except that additional time is provided where the biology of the stocks, other environmental conditions, or international management measures dictate otherwise. Ms. Snowe and I have included a provision clarifying that under existing law the Secretary of Commerce may extend rebuilding beyond 10 years if the rebuilding target we are working towards increases by 100 percent or more over the original target set by the Secretary at the start of the rebuilding plan. The extension should only be granted as long as the fishery meets or exceeds the original target and if the Secretary certifies that the overfishing requirements of the Act are met and that rebuilding will continue to occur. We are not endorsing any backsliding on conservation, nor encouraging overfishing, but trying to deal with primarily a logistical problem: a mid-course increase in the targets based on new scientific information. Recently the National Marine Fisheries Service re-analysis of biological reference points resulted in more than doubling our rebuilding targets on several species in the Northeast multispecies fishery during year 3 of a 10-year rebuilding plan. This development generated confusion in the region, but we believe there is a simple response. Under the law, we believe the Secretary of Commerce has the authority to provide a biologically-based and reasonable time extension for these stocks, provided it is as short as possible, rebuilding continues, overfishing does not occur, and the original targets are met. This is only a commonsense response to this situation--a transition rule, if you will. A substantial change in biomass targets in the middle of a rebuilding plan was never envisioned when NMFS wrote the implementing regulations, but such a response would be consistent with the Act. This amendment also contains a provision that would aid in implementing the industry-funded buyout in the West Coast groundfish fishery which Congress authorized last year. I know that my colleagues from Oregon, Washington and California care very much about this provision. I am happy that we could accommodate them with this legislation and help the fishing communities on the West Coast that are reeling from severe overfishing on stocks that are long lived, slow growing and slow to reproduce. Finally, this amendment includes important provisions authorizing national approaches to cooperative research, independent peer review of data collection and assessment methods, fisheries training and outreach, and cooperative enforcement. All of these proposals are based on programs that have worked in practice or from recommendations made to Congress by the National Research Council. These provisions will improve the management of our fisheries by improving the science that underlies fishery management decisions or by enhancing local law enforcement efforts. These provisions will also ensure that the fishing industry has a seat at the table in discussions about fishery science and management. We have long supported the need to bridge the science gap so that scientists and fishermen can engage in productive dialogue on fishery management. This is essential to developing cooperative plans to achieving a common goal: sustainable fisheries for our communities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the President has pledged to nominate qualified individuals with outstanding judicial records to the Federal Court System, he has, time and time again, failed to make good on that pledge. Judge Shedd is no exception. During his tenure as a trial judge, Judge Shedd has exhibited extreme, even radical views on an array of important issues. Judge Shedd's record demonstrates that in cases involving civil rights, privacy, discrimination and federalism, he is willing to cross the boundaries of established case law and rule in a manner that is out of touch with mainstream thinking. A few cases in particular merit the attention of this body. In a case demonstrating Judge Shedd's extreme stance on federalism, he struck down as unconstitutional the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which we passed to ensure that states keep drivers' license information confidential. This legislation, designed as ``antistalking'' legislation, was drafted in part because antiabortion activists have used accessible drivers' license information to obtain the addresses of doctors who performed abortions in order to post that information on websites. Mr. President, this case was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist authoring the opinion. Judge Shedd also has a record of condoning serious civil liberties violations by law enforcement. In one particularly disturbing case, Judge Shedd dismissed a lawsuit brought against a corrections officer who had stripped an inmate naked and left him without bedding for 48 hours after the inmate confessed to not knowing the prison's rules concerning lights out. In dismissing the case, Judge Shedd merely stated that he did not think the inmate had been punished. In another instance, he imposed an inconsequential $250 fine in a case where a sheriff and a prosecutor secretly videotaped a jailhouse conversation between a defendant and his lawyer. Judge Shedd defended the penalty stating that he did not think the pair committed any civil rights violation. I am deeply troubled that we might appoint a judge who does not recognize the blatant civil rights violation in this circumstance. Perhaps most troubling is Judge Shedd's overwhelming tendency to grant summary judgement against plaintiffs in race and gender employment discrimination cases, preventing the vast majority of such cases from going to trial. In a case involving sexual harassment in the workplace, Judge Shedd reversed the recommendation of a magistrate that the plaintiff be allowed to present her case to a jury, granting summary judgment for the employer even though Judge Shedd himself concluded that the supervisor's conduct ``clearly was, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.'' He relied, therefore, on a tortured interpretation of both the facts and the law to rule against the plaintiff in that case. This is one of many instances that demonstrate a clear pattern in which Judge Shedd has prevented cases brought by people of color and women from ever reaching a jury. We routinely put aside our partisan differences to send qualified men and women to the federal bench because it is in the best interests of our country to fill seats with those individuals who have pledged to interpret the law objectively and without bias, whether or not they happen to be liberal or conservative in temperament. We place a great deal of trust in these men and women, as their appointments are guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, based on the records and statements I have reviewed, I do not believe we can place our trust in Judge Shedd to protect the civil liberties Americans of all races and beliefs have fought so hard to win. It is because of this that I will vote against his nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as the Senate and the House prepare to bring the 107th session to a close, we leave some important small business legislation unfinished. Regrettably, that includes passage of the Small Business Drought Relief Act because of serial holds from Republicans since August 1-3 and a half months. This emergency legislation passed our committee with unanimous support, and yet Senators with no jurisdiction in small business, instigated by an administration that claims to support small business, obstructed passage. The committee reached out to those Senate members and their staffs time and again, and there was no cooperation. Sixteen Governors-- Governor Hodges of South Carolina, Governor Easley of North Carolina, Governor Barnes of Georgia, Governor Foster of Louisiana, Governor Musgrove of Mississippi, Governor Perry of Texas, Governor Wise of West Virginia, Governor Patton of Kentucky, Governor Glendening of Maryland, Governor Holden of Missouri, Governor Keating of Oklahoma, Governor Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor Warner of Virginia, Governor Siegel man of Alabama, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, and Governor Guinn of Nevada--reached out to the Congress asking for us to pass this bill, and they got no cooperation. The committee was ultimately able to overcome tremendous differences between CBO's cost estimate and OMB's cost estimate to reach agreement with the Office of Management and Budget on passing this emergency legislation last week, but not even that moved the Republican leadership to cooperate. So we go home tonight, and our small businesses--main street America--needlessly struggle to make ends meet, keep their doors open and employees on the payroll, because of partisan politics. For those who don't remember, this is emergency legislation to help small non-farm-related businesses across this Nation that are in dire straits because of drought conditions in their State. Just like the farmers and ranchers, the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops lose a lot of business because of drought. Right now these small businesses can't get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government--bureaucracy. SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. Contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day we introduced this bill, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. Unfortunately, the assistance was limited to farm-related small businesses. The 36 States include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The situation has only gotten worse judging by SBA's own numbers. Since the bill was introduced, the SBA has declared disasters in two more States and the District of Columbia. Instead of rising to the occasion and using their statutory authority to help the small businesses in these areas, they continue to deny them access to disaster loans, hiding behind a legal opinion--a legal opinion that they will not provide to the committee. To make sure the facts of this legislation are accurate, let the record show that this bill does not expand the SBA disaster loan program. SBA already has this authority, and this bill simply restates and clarifies that authority to ensure that the law is applied fairly. Let the record show that SBA, contrary to its claims, has the expertise to determine when a drought is a disaster. First, the SBA already declares drought disasters and does so mainly by working with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Second, in addition to working with the Secretary of Agriculture, there are existing SBA guidelines for declaring disasters, and those guidelines apply to drought too. For example, the Governor of a State can request a declaration from the Administrator of the SBA after certifying that more than five small businesses have suffered economic injury because of a disaster. Last, let the record show that this legislation is modest in cost. CBO estimated that this bill would cost $5 million per year for 5 years, far less than OMB's estimate of approximately $100 million per year. And last week, as I referenced earlier, we were able to reach an agreement with OMB that capped the cost at $9 million for fiscal year 2003, enough to cover the cost of the bill as passed by the committee and the Bond/Enzi/Burns/Crapo amendment. Unfortunately, even OMB's concurrence and the support of many Senators and Governors did not persuade the remaining Senator blocking passage of the bill to put aside his differences for the sake of small businesses and permit it to pass. I thank the many supporters of this bill. My 22 colleagues who are cosponsors--Senators Bond, Hollings, Landrieu, Baucus, Bingaman, Daschle, Johnson, Edwards, Carnahan Cleland, Enzi, Lieberman, Harkin, Ensign, Reid, Helms, Allen, Bennett, Torricelli, Levin, Crapo and Thurmond. All the Governors who put small businesses first and politics last. Mr. Donald Wilhite, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, for all his assistance to my staff in understanding the scope of drought in this country and for writing in support of the legislation. National Small Business United, for always being there to stand up for small businesses. The many small business owners and small business advocates, such as Wildlife Action, in South Carolina, who took the time to write me regarding the drought and their problems with the SBA. And last, but certainly not least, from my home State, I thank Bob Durand of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Association for his help and support. We will take this fight up again in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support and my remarks be included in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate should be embarrassed at what we are about to do. It is amazing to me, with the country facing so many important challenges, and a slow economy to boot, that the Senate would consider adjourning for the year without passing the spending bills to fund the Government for the next 11 months. We are putting off until January decisions that should have been made months ago--and as a result, many Government agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels will not see the additional money they have been promised until next spring. That is halfway through the fiscal year. Let's be clear about what is happening. The Federal Government will spend nearly $2 trillion this year. Yet we have not passed the appropriations bills because the administration objects to $9 billion in spending. We are about to pass a continuing resolution that runs through mid-January because the President objects to $9 billion--less than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending. And his own party supports much of that spending. I ask my Republican friends, do they think it will be much easier next year to push through significant spending cuts? Of course not. When offered the opportunity to vote no on spending bills, my Republican friends generally don't. We as Democrats must begin to blow a hole in this ridiculous myth that somehow Republicans don't like spending. They like spending just fine. They may claim to be for smaller government and lower spending, yet Republicans in the Senate have supported appropriations bills more than 85 percent of the time since they first took control in 1995. More and more, the differences between the parties are not over major spending decisions, because almost everyone here votes for all the spending. The main difference between the parties is that Democrats want to pay for the spending, while Republicans are content to borrow from our children to pay for it. Today's GOP believes in the ``free lunch'' that we were all taught didn't exist. Future generations will suffer as a result. What does a long-term CR actually mean for the American people? To start, a long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying nearly $40 billion in additional homeland security funds requested by the President. It would delay billions of dollars in planned increases to ramp up the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, hire hundreds of Border Patrol agents, bolster State and local antiterrorism programs, and step up other domestic security programs. The 11,000 FBI agents who are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism will have to wonder whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war. Many of the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large expenditures, such as explosive detection equipment at airports--but the money won't be there. The Customs Service will have to defer the scheduled hiring of more than 600 agents and inspectors to serve at the Nation's high-risk land and sea points of entry. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but those essential funds for emergency workers have not been approved. Thousands of emergency grants for fire departments, communications equipment, emergency operations centers, you name it--these items cannot be funded at fiscal year 2002 levels. Or take education. The National Conference of State Legislatures has announced that States face a cumulative $58 billion budget deficit. Many States are already cutting public education funding, and many others are poised to do so--making inaction by the Federal Government extremely costly to our kids. Passing a long-term CR will delay increases in funding for critically important education programs such as the title I program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, making it difficult for school districts to plan their budgets for the upcoming school year. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but that money for emergency workers hasn't been approved. Here is what's fascinating. Not a single Republican Senator up for election said they were for less education spending. They all talked about education as a top priority and voiced their support for the No Child Left Behind Act we passed last year. But who are they kidding? Public schools trying to implement the changes required by the law need more funding. For the GOP to support the law that authorizes the spending, but then object to the spending itself, is the height of hypocrisy. Or take veterans programs, or Federal research spending. If a long- term CR is approved, it would shortchange veterans by funding Veterans Administration medical care at $2.5 billion less than what is needed to meet their needs. The 4-million veterans who rely on the VA for their health care will have to worry if that care will be available to them. And the Director of the National Institutes of Health has said that he might have to scale back bioterrorism research grants. Now, we aren't living in a vacuum here. Like many others, I would like to find ways to slow the growth in Federal spending, and I have several ideas for doing so. But this year, the differences are so small relative to the budget that inaction is simply unnacceptable. And here is what's worse. The Republicans, who exhort us to be mindful of how we are spending ``the people's money'' now that deficits have returned--these are the same Republicans who voted for $500 billion in additional deficit-blowing tax cuts in the House, and would have voted for just as much in the Senate if given the chance. This President, who claims to be fiscally responsible and urges us to watch how we spend, sent up a budget this year with nearly $600 billion in new tax cuts for the well-off and increases in spending of 20 percent since he took office. And we are forced into a budget impasse over $9 billion. Let me be clear: When we increase the deficit and add to the debt to pay for new tax cuts or new spending, it is no longer ``the people's money.'' It is our kids' money, and for that reason we should be far more responsible with our fiscal policy than we have been the last 2 years. Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities by failing to do something about the economy before we leave. There are many good stimulus ideas out there--some of which are affordable, while others could be paid for by scaling back tax cuts scheduled for 2004 or 2006. But as things stand today, the Senate is unlikely to consider any real stimulus until after the State of the Union Address next year which means Congress won't act before February or March, which means that relief won't be in place before next summer. That is inexcusable. The American people shouldn't have to wait 8 months for us to act. Simply put, to delay action on the budget when the difference is $9 billion out of $2 trillion, and when Republicans have voted for more than $500 billion in additional tax cuts, is an insult. We can do better, and we must.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, since September 11, 2001, many in Congress have been assiduously working to create a Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that today we are finally completing our work. After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington it became clear that to thwart future attacks on the United States the Federal Government would have to do a better job gathering and coordinating intelligence. Since September 11 I, along with several colleagues, have believed that a reorganization of the Federal Government is critical to improving the security of this country. Though the President and many Congressional Republicans initially opposed this major reorganization, there is now consensus on the need to create a new department. It is imperative that we move quickly and urgently to reorganize the Federal Government. Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security infrastructure and we should not squander a single day addressing them. An independent task force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' There is also new evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive and recently recorded an audio tape. We must act now to create this agency and to ensure that the United States Government is doing everything in its power to better protect its borders, coasts, cities, and towns. The Transportation Security Agency continues to play a vital role in our domestic security policy under this legislation. At no time in our Nation's history has increased security for our transportation infrastructure been as critical, and I am confident that as part of this new department the TSA will perform up to task and help ease the fears many Americans have concerning the safety of our airports, trains, and ports. The legislation also address the impending baggage screening deadline. Although the Congress mandated a December 31, 2002 deadline for screening all baggage at airports, deploying and installing the necessary devices for the over 400 airports has proved to be a monumental challenge and it is clear that many airports are unable to meet this requirement. I am pleased that this legislation includes a common sense provision to extend the deadline for the major airports and strictly monitor their progress in screening baggage. The extension through December 31, 2003 will also give the TSA more time to properly train and deploy the 22,000 federal baggage screeners necessary to staff the devices and oversee the screening process. Rushing this process in anticipation of the deadline would have seriously compromised the effectiveness of the enhanced security measures. Also included in this legislation is a provision that will allow financially strapped airlines to purchase ``war risk'' insurance from the Government at a reasonable cost, alleviating some of the costs the industry has incurred after September 11. This provision is critically important, as many airlines have been forced to spend upwards of $100 million to insure their planes against war and the continued threat of terrorism. Tens of thousands of aviation workers have lost their jobs because of the financial crisis in the industry. It is my hope that Government issued insurance will help expedite the recovery of this important sector of our economy. As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I want to make a few comments about the Coast Guard provisions in the legislation. The Coast Guard is comprised of approximately 36,000 military personnel, roughly the size of the New York City Police Department. Recently passed legislation will expand the Coast Guard to 45,500 military personnel by the end of this fiscal year. Expansion is important to homeland security when you consider that the Coast Guard must patrol and protect more than 1,000 harbor channels, and 25,000 miles of inland, intra coastal, and coastal waterways that serve more than 300 ports. The Coast Guard is also responsible for a number of non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, maintaining aids to navigation, marine safety, marine environmental protection and fisheries law enforcement. I am pleased that this legislation does not split up the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency with personnel and assets that are capable of performing a variety of missions with little or no notice. The legislation preserves this flexibility by keeping the Coast Guard in tact. In addition the bill ensures that the Coast Guard receives the proper attention it deserves in the new Department by requiring the commandant of the Coast Guard to report directly to the new Secretary. The commandant has this authority within the Department of Transportation, clearly he should have the same authority in the Department of Homeland Security. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has had to divert resources from its non-homeland security missions in order to beef up homeland security. I asked the General Accounting Office to document the change in Coast Guard missions since September 11 and to make recommendations on how best for the Coast Guard to operate under the ``new normalcy'' post September 11. The GAO just released its report and they note that many of the Coast Guard's core missions, including enforcement of fisheries and other environmental laws, are still not back to pre- September 11 levels. The GAO recommends that the Coast Guard develop a long-range strategic plan for achieving all of their missions, as well as a means to easily monitor progress in achieving these goals. Many of us are concerned, that the traditional non-homeland security missions of the Coast Guard will suffer once the agency is transferred. In response to these concerns this bill contains safeguards that will ensure that non-homeland security missions will get done. I look forward to working with the Coast Guard to ensure these missions are getting done. Search and rescue, oil spill response and fisheries law enforcement are important and we cannot afford to ignore or under fund these missions. This bill also includes a study on accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System, a long overdue modernization of Coast Guard ships and aircraft that operate off-shore in the deepwater environment. The Coast Guard is operating World War II-era cutters in the deepwater environment to perform environmental protection, national defense, and law enforcement missions. Coast Guard aircraft, which are operated in a maintenance intensive salt water environment, are reaching the end of their useful lives as well. Besides high operating costs, these assets are technologically and operationally obsolete. The Integrated Deepwater System will not only reduce operational and maintenance costs, but will significantly improve upon current command and control capabilities in the deepwater environment. I support this study. I look forward to reviewing the results of this study next year and if acceleration makes sense, supporting that well. While I support much of what this legislation does and while I believe we should quickly move forward to create the Department, I have serious concerns with particular provisions of the bill. First, I am extremely disappointed that this legislation provides the administration with the authority to rewrite civil service laws without guaranteeing that Federal workers will receive fair treatment without regard to political affiliation, equal pay for equal work, and protection for whistleblowers. The hallmark of civil service is protection from political influence through laws designed to ensure the independent hiring, promotion, and firing of employees based exclusively on merit. And by allowing the administration to rewrite the civil service laws without guaranteeing these protections and without meaningful labor union participation, we are putting these important protections at risk. I am also troubled by a provision in this legislation that gives the President essentially unfettered discretion to forbid Department of Homeland Security employees to belong to unions if he determines that is necessary not only for the interest of national security but also to protect the Department's ability to protect homeland security. I do not object to working to reform how government operates, to make it easier to manage and more effective. But what has been proposed in this legislation is not an improvement in the system, it just takes rights away from workers. One of the most troubling provisions in this legislation deals with protecting critical infrastructure information that is voluntarily submitted to the Department, a worthy goal and one that I strongly support. After all, companies will be unwilling to turn over information about possible vulnerabilities if doing so would make them subject to public disclosure or regulatory actions. To encourage companies to provide this valuable information to the Department, the legislation would exempt the information from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The reason for my concern, is that the definition of information is so broad that it could include any information that a company turns over to Department of Homeland Security. What this means is that information that is currently available to the public would be barred from release if it is labeled by the company as critical infrastructure. One can easily imagine a company turning over incriminating documents to the Government so that it would not be accessible by anyone else. I am discouraged by inclusion of this provision, because earlier in this debate we developed a compromise that more narrowly defined what information could be exempt from FOIA, one that protected critical infrastructure information without opening up a loophole for companies to avoid Government regulation and public disclosure. I am concerned by how the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be treated in the new Department under this legislation. For years the INS has been badly in need of reform and it seemed that creating the Department of Homeland Security would provide an opportunity to make improvements in enforcement and provide better visa and processing services. Under the Lieberman proposal to create the Department of Homeland Security, there was an Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs who would act as a central authority to ensure a uniform immigration policy and provide effective coordination between the service and enforcement functions. The Republican legislation unfortunately does not include an elevated immigration function headed by one under secretary, and instead buries the immigration enforcement function within the ``Border and Transportation Security'' division and places the immigration services function with the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no easy split between border enforcement and services. For example, countering schemes for wrongful entry is not just a border challenge, it requires close coordination among all units within immigration responsibilities. Both functions rely on shared information and intelligence. I am afraid, that with two people interpreting immigration law and policy there are likely to be conflicting interpretations, a situation that could exacerbate the current coordination and communications problems that exist within INS. I am extremely concerned that this legislation includes liability protections inserted by the House for manufacturers of anti-terrorism technology and childhood vaccines. The new provisions allow the Secretary to designate equipment and technology used by the Department as official ``anti-terrorism technology.'' In the event of a terrorist attack this designation will prevent injured parties from seeking compensation against manufacturers of such technology, even if a manufacturer exercised gross negligence in marketing its product. The same is true for manufacturers of childhood vaccines who will be exempt from liability if a child dies or sustains injury as a result of negligence stemming from the inclusion of a ``component or ingredient'' in any vaccine listed under the Vaccine Injury Table. This provision is absolutely unconscionable. We should not give manufacturers an incentive to experiment with questionable formulas or risky ingredients for vaccines which are intended to immunize children from disease. Likewise, we should not give manufacturers of anti-terrorism technologies any incentive to sell a product they know to be below par. Another provision added by the House would remove Senate-approved legislation to bar Government contracts with corporations that have moved their headquarters offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. The Republicans say that this provision will unnecessarily interfere with our national security. Well, I believe that it also affects our national security when corporate use of tax havens and loopholes is at an all-time high. Various estimates show that this sort of tax evasion is costing the government tens of billions of dollars a year which means that tax burdens must be higher on law-abiding citizens and small businesses that pay by the rules. To remove this sound provision at the last minute is not only bad policy, it also insults the memory of Senator Wellstone, who worked so hard to ensure that this provision was passed. Despite my concerns with particular provisions in this legislation, I do support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and believe it is an important element in our efforts to protect the American people from terrorism.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, since September 11, 2001, many in Congress have been assiduously working to create a Department of Homeland Security, and I am pleased that today we are finally completing our work. After the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington it became clear that to thwart future attacks on the United States the Federal Government would have to do a better job gathering and coordinating intelligence. Since September 11 I, along with several colleagues, have believed that a reorganization of the Federal Government is critical to improving the security of this country. Though the President and many Congressional Republicans initially opposed this major reorganization, there is now consensus on the need to create a new department. It is imperative that we move quickly and urgently to reorganize the Federal Government. Vulnerabilities exist in our homeland security infrastructure and we should not squander a single day addressing them. An independent task force, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman, recently advised that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.'' There is also new evidence that Osama bin Laden is alive and recently recorded an audio tape. We must act now to create this agency and to ensure that the United States Government is doing everything in its power to better protect its borders, coasts, cities, and towns. The Transportation Security Agency continues to play a vital role in our domestic security policy under this legislation. At no time in our Nation's history has increased security for our transportation infrastructure been as critical, and I am confident that as part of this new department the TSA will perform up to task and help ease the fears many Americans have concerning the safety of our airports, trains, and ports. The legislation also address the impending baggage screening deadline. Although the Congress mandated a December 31, 2002 deadline for screening all baggage at airports, deploying and installing the necessary devices for the over 400 airports has proved to be a monumental challenge and it is clear that many airports are unable to meet this requirement. I am pleased that this legislation includes a common sense provision to extend the deadline for the major airports and strictly monitor their progress in screening baggage. The extension through December 31, 2003 will also give the TSA more time to properly train and deploy the 22,000 federal baggage screeners necessary to staff the devices and oversee the screening process. Rushing this process in anticipation of the deadline would have seriously compromised the effectiveness of the enhanced security measures. Also included in this legislation is a provision that will allow financially strapped airlines to purchase ``war risk'' insurance from the Government at a reasonable cost, alleviating some of the costs the industry has incurred after September 11. This provision is critically important, as many airlines have been forced to spend upwards of $100 million to insure their planes against war and the continued threat of terrorism. Tens of thousands of aviation workers have lost their jobs because of the financial crisis in the industry. It is my hope that Government issued insurance will help expedite the recovery of this important sector of our economy. As Chairman of the Oceans, Atmosphere and Fisheries Subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over the Coast Guard, I want to make a few comments about the Coast Guard provisions in the legislation. The Coast Guard is comprised of approximately 36,000 military personnel, roughly the size of the New York City Police Department. Recently passed legislation will expand the Coast Guard to 45,500 military personnel by the end of this fiscal year. Expansion is important to homeland security when you consider that the Coast Guard must patrol and protect more than 1,000 harbor channels, and 25,000 miles of inland, intra coastal, and coastal waterways that serve more than 300 ports. The Coast Guard is also responsible for a number of non-homeland security missions such as search and rescue, maintaining aids to navigation, marine safety, marine environmental protection and fisheries law enforcement. I am pleased that this legislation does not split up the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is a multi-mission agency with personnel and assets that are capable of performing a variety of missions with little or no notice. The legislation preserves this flexibility by keeping the Coast Guard in tact. In addition the bill ensures that the Coast Guard receives the proper attention it deserves in the new Department by requiring the commandant of the Coast Guard to report directly to the new Secretary. The commandant has this authority within the Department of Transportation, clearly he should have the same authority in the Department of Homeland Security. Since September 11, the Coast Guard has had to divert resources from its non-homeland security missions in order to beef up homeland security. I asked the General Accounting Office to document the change in Coast Guard missions since September 11 and to make recommendations on how best for the Coast Guard to operate under the ``new normalcy'' post September 11. The GAO just released its report and they note that many of the Coast Guard's core missions, including enforcement of fisheries and other environmental laws, are still not back to pre- September 11 levels. The GAO recommends that the Coast Guard develop a long-range strategic plan for achieving all of their missions, as well as a means to easily monitor progress in achieving these goals. Many of us are concerned, that the traditional non-homeland security missions of the Coast Guard will suffer once the agency is transferred. In response to these concerns this bill contains safeguards that will ensure that non-homeland security missions will get done. I look forward to working with the Coast Guard to ensure these missions are getting done. Search and rescue, oil spill response and fisheries law enforcement are important and we cannot afford to ignore or under fund these missions. This bill also includes a study on accelerating the Integrated Deepwater System, a long overdue modernization of Coast Guard ships and aircraft that operate off-shore in the deepwater environment. The Coast Guard is operating World War II-era cutters in the deepwater environment to perform environmental protection, national defense, and law enforcement missions. Coast Guard aircraft, which are operated in a maintenance intensive salt water environment, are reaching the end of their useful lives as well. Besides high operating costs, these assets are technologically and operationally obsolete. The Integrated Deepwater System will not only reduce operational and maintenance costs, but will significantly improve upon current command and control capabilities in the deepwater environment. I support this study. I look forward to reviewing the results of this study next year and if acceleration makes sense, supporting that well. While I support much of what this legislation does and while I believe we should quickly move forward to create the Department, I have serious concerns with particular provisions of the bill. First, I am extremely disappointed that this legislation provides the administration with the authority to rewrite civil service laws without guaranteeing that Federal workers will receive fair treatment without regard to political affiliation, equal pay for equal work, and protection for whistleblowers. The hallmark of civil service is protection from political influence through laws designed to ensure the independent hiring, promotion, and firing of employees based exclusively on merit. And by allowing the administration to rewrite the civil service laws without guaranteeing these protections and without meaningful labor union participation, we are putting these important protections at risk. I am also troubled by a provision in this legislation that gives the President essentially unfettered discretion to forbid Department of Homeland Security employees to belong to unions if he determines that is necessary not only for the interest of national security but also to protect the Department's ability to protect homeland security. I do not object to working to reform how government operates, to make it easier to manage and more effective. But what has been proposed in this legislation is not an improvement in the system, it just takes rights away from workers. One of the most troubling provisions in this legislation deals with protecting critical infrastructure information that is voluntarily submitted to the Department, a worthy goal and one that I strongly support. After all, companies will be unwilling to turn over information about possible vulnerabilities if doing so would make them subject to public disclosure or regulatory actions. To encourage companies to provide this valuable information to the Department, the legislation would exempt the information from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The reason for my concern, is that the definition of information is so broad that it could include any information that a company turns over to Department of Homeland Security. What this means is that information that is currently available to the public would be barred from release if it is labeled by the company as critical infrastructure. One can easily imagine a company turning over incriminating documents to the Government so that it would not be accessible by anyone else. I am discouraged by inclusion of this provision, because earlier in this debate we developed a compromise that more narrowly defined what information could be exempt from FOIA, one that protected critical infrastructure information without opening up a loophole for companies to avoid Government regulation and public disclosure. I am concerned by how the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be treated in the new Department under this legislation. For years the INS has been badly in need of reform and it seemed that creating the Department of Homeland Security would provide an opportunity to make improvements in enforcement and provide better visa and processing services. Under the Lieberman proposal to create the Department of Homeland Security, there was an Under Secretary for Immigration Affairs who would act as a central authority to ensure a uniform immigration policy and provide effective coordination between the service and enforcement functions. The Republican legislation unfortunately does not include an elevated immigration function headed by one under secretary, and instead buries the immigration enforcement function within the ``Border and Transportation Security'' division and places the immigration services function with the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security. There is no easy split between border enforcement and services. For example, countering schemes for wrongful entry is not just a border challenge, it requires close coordination among all units within immigration responsibilities. Both functions rely on shared information and intelligence. I am afraid, that with two people interpreting immigration law and policy there are likely to be conflicting interpretations, a situation that could exacerbate the current coordination and communications problems that exist within INS. I am extremely concerned that this legislation includes liability protections inserted by the House for manufacturers of anti-terrorism technology and childhood vaccines. The new provisions allow the Secretary to designate equipment and technology used by the Department as official ``anti-terrorism technology.'' In the event of a terrorist attack this designation will prevent injured parties from seeking compensation against manufacturers of such technology, even if a manufacturer exercised gross negligence in marketing its product. The same is true for manufacturers of childhood vaccines who will be exempt from liability if a child dies or sustains injury as a result of negligence stemming from the inclusion of a ``component or ingredient'' in any vaccine listed under the Vaccine Injury Table. This provision is absolutely unconscionable. We should not give manufacturers an incentive to experiment with questionable formulas or risky ingredients for vaccines which are intended to immunize children from disease. Likewise, we should not give manufacturers of anti-terrorism technologies any incentive to sell a product they know to be below par. Another provision added by the House would remove Senate-approved legislation to bar Government contracts with corporations that have moved their headquarters offshore to avoid U.S. taxes. The Republicans say that this provision will unnecessarily interfere with our national security. Well, I believe that it also affects our national security when corporate use of tax havens and loopholes is at an all-time high. Various estimates show that this sort of tax evasion is costing the government tens of billions of dollars a year which means that tax burdens must be higher on law-abiding citizens and small businesses that pay by the rules. To remove this sound provision at the last minute is not only bad policy, it also insults the memory of Senator Wellstone, who worked so hard to ensure that this provision was passed. Despite my concerns with particular provisions in this legislation, I do support the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and believe it is an important element in our efforts to protect the American people from terrorism.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong opposition to the nomination of Dennis Shedd to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Although the President has pledged to nominate qualified individuals with outstanding judicial records to the Federal Court System, he has, time and time again, failed to make good on that pledge. Judge Shedd is no exception. During his tenure as a trial judge, Judge Shedd has exhibited extreme, even radical views on an array of important issues. Judge Shedd's record demonstrates that in cases involving civil rights, privacy, discrimination and federalism, he is willing to cross the boundaries of established case law and rule in a manner that is out of touch with mainstream thinking. A few cases in particular merit the attention of this body. In a case demonstrating Judge Shedd's extreme stance on federalism, he struck down as unconstitutional the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, which we passed to ensure that states keep drivers' license information confidential. This legislation, designed as ``antistalking'' legislation, was drafted in part because antiabortion activists have used accessible drivers' license information to obtain the addresses of doctors who performed abortions in order to post that information on websites. Mr. President, this case was reversed unanimously by the Supreme Court, with Chief Justice Rehnquist authoring the opinion. Judge Shedd also has a record of condoning serious civil liberties violations by law enforcement. In one particularly disturbing case, Judge Shedd dismissed a lawsuit brought against a corrections officer who had stripped an inmate naked and left him without bedding for 48 hours after the inmate confessed to not knowing the prison's rules concerning lights out. In dismissing the case, Judge Shedd merely stated that he did not think the inmate had been punished. In another instance, he imposed an inconsequential $250 fine in a case where a sheriff and a prosecutor secretly videotaped a jailhouse conversation between a defendant and his lawyer. Judge Shedd defended the penalty stating that he did not think the pair committed any civil rights violation. I am deeply troubled that we might appoint a judge who does not recognize the blatant civil rights violation in this circumstance. Perhaps most troubling is Judge Shedd's overwhelming tendency to grant summary judgement against plaintiffs in race and gender employment discrimination cases, preventing the vast majority of such cases from going to trial. In a case involving sexual harassment in the workplace, Judge Shedd reversed the recommendation of a magistrate that the plaintiff be allowed to present her case to a jury, granting summary judgment for the employer even though Judge Shedd himself concluded that the supervisor's conduct ``clearly was, from an objective standpoint, sufficiently severe and pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.'' He relied, therefore, on a tortured interpretation of both the facts and the law to rule against the plaintiff in that case. This is one of many instances that demonstrate a clear pattern in which Judge Shedd has prevented cases brought by people of color and women from ever reaching a jury. We routinely put aside our partisan differences to send qualified men and women to the federal bench because it is in the best interests of our country to fill seats with those individuals who have pledged to interpret the law objectively and without bias, whether or not they happen to be liberal or conservative in temperament. We place a great deal of trust in these men and women, as their appointments are guaranteed for life. Unfortunately, based on the records and statements I have reviewed, I do not believe we can place our trust in Judge Shedd to protect the civil liberties Americans of all races and beliefs have fought so hard to win. It is because of this that I will vote against his nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senate should be embarrassed at what we are about to do. It is amazing to me, with the country facing so many important challenges, and a slow economy to boot, that the Senate would consider adjourning for the year without passing the spending bills to fund the Government for the next 11 months. We are putting off until January decisions that should have been made months ago--and as a result, many Government agencies at the Federal, State, and local levels will not see the additional money they have been promised until next spring. That is halfway through the fiscal year. Let's be clear about what is happening. The Federal Government will spend nearly $2 trillion this year. Yet we have not passed the appropriations bills because the administration objects to $9 billion in spending. We are about to pass a continuing resolution that runs through mid-January because the President objects to $9 billion--less than one-half of 1 percent of Federal spending. And his own party supports much of that spending. I ask my Republican friends, do they think it will be much easier next year to push through significant spending cuts? Of course not. When offered the opportunity to vote no on spending bills, my Republican friends generally don't. We as Democrats must begin to blow a hole in this ridiculous myth that somehow Republicans don't like spending. They like spending just fine. They may claim to be for smaller government and lower spending, yet Republicans in the Senate have supported appropriations bills more than 85 percent of the time since they first took control in 1995. More and more, the differences between the parties are not over major spending decisions, because almost everyone here votes for all the spending. The main difference between the parties is that Democrats want to pay for the spending, while Republicans are content to borrow from our children to pay for it. Today's GOP believes in the ``free lunch'' that we were all taught didn't exist. Future generations will suffer as a result. What does a long-term CR actually mean for the American people? To start, a long-term CR would undermine the war on terror by denying nearly $40 billion in additional homeland security funds requested by the President. It would delay billions of dollars in planned increases to ramp up the Coast Guard and the Customs Service, hire hundreds of Border Patrol agents, bolster State and local antiterrorism programs, and step up other domestic security programs. The 11,000 FBI agents who are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism will have to wonder whether they have the necessary resources to fight that war. Many of the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large expenditures, such as explosive detection equipment at airports--but the money won't be there. The Customs Service will have to defer the scheduled hiring of more than 600 agents and inspectors to serve at the Nation's high-risk land and sea points of entry. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but those essential funds for emergency workers have not been approved. Thousands of emergency grants for fire departments, communications equipment, emergency operations centers, you name it--these items cannot be funded at fiscal year 2002 levels. Or take education. The National Conference of State Legislatures has announced that States face a cumulative $58 billion budget deficit. Many States are already cutting public education funding, and many others are poised to do so--making inaction by the Federal Government extremely costly to our kids. Passing a long-term CR will delay increases in funding for critically important education programs such as the title I program and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, making it difficult for school districts to plan their budgets for the upcoming school year. The President's budget promised $3.5 billion in new money to ``first responders,'' but that money for emergency workers hasn't been approved. Here is what's fascinating. Not a single Republican Senator up for election said they were for less education spending. They all talked about education as a top priority and voiced their support for the No Child Left Behind Act we passed last year. But who are they kidding? Public schools trying to implement the changes required by the law need more funding. For the GOP to support the law that authorizes the spending, but then object to the spending itself, is the height of hypocrisy. Or take veterans programs, or Federal research spending. If a long- term CR is approved, it would shortchange veterans by funding Veterans Administration medical care at $2.5 billion less than what is needed to meet their needs. The 4-million veterans who rely on the VA for their health care will have to worry if that care will be available to them. And the Director of the National Institutes of Health has said that he might have to scale back bioterrorism research grants. Now, we aren't living in a vacuum here. Like many others, I would like to find ways to slow the growth in Federal spending, and I have several ideas for doing so. But this year, the differences are so small relative to the budget that inaction is simply unnacceptable. And here is what's worse. The Republicans, who exhort us to be mindful of how we are spending ``the people's money'' now that deficits have returned--these are the same Republicans who voted for $500 billion in additional deficit-blowing tax cuts in the House, and would have voted for just as much in the Senate if given the chance. This President, who claims to be fiscally responsible and urges us to watch how we spend, sent up a budget this year with nearly $600 billion in new tax cuts for the well-off and increases in spending of 20 percent since he took office. And we are forced into a budget impasse over $9 billion. Let me be clear: When we increase the deficit and add to the debt to pay for new tax cuts or new spending, it is no longer ``the people's money.'' It is our kids' money, and for that reason we should be far more responsible with our fiscal policy than we have been the last 2 years. Congress has been abdicating its responsibilities by failing to do something about the economy before we leave. There are many good stimulus ideas out there--some of which are affordable, while others could be paid for by scaling back tax cuts scheduled for 2004 or 2006. But as things stand today, the Senate is unlikely to consider any real stimulus until after the State of the Union Address next year which means Congress won't act before February or March, which means that relief won't be in place before next summer. That is inexcusable. The American people shouldn't have to wait 8 months for us to act. Simply put, to delay action on the budget when the difference is $9 billion out of $2 trillion, and when Republicans have voted for more than $500 billion in additional tax cuts, is an insult. We can do better, and we must.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as the Senate and the House prepare to bring the 107th session to a close, we leave some important small business legislation unfinished. Regrettably, that includes passage of the Small Business Drought Relief Act because of serial holds from Republicans since August 1-3 and a half months. This emergency legislation passed our committee with unanimous support, and yet Senators with no jurisdiction in small business, instigated by an administration that claims to support small business, obstructed passage. The committee reached out to those Senate members and their staffs time and again, and there was no cooperation. Sixteen Governors-- Governor Hodges of South Carolina, Governor Easley of North Carolina, Governor Barnes of Georgia, Governor Foster of Louisiana, Governor Musgrove of Mississippi, Governor Perry of Texas, Governor Wise of West Virginia, Governor Patton of Kentucky, Governor Glendening of Maryland, Governor Holden of Missouri, Governor Keating of Oklahoma, Governor Sundquist of Tennessee, Governor Warner of Virginia, Governor Siegel man of Alabama, Governor Huckabee of Arkansas, and Governor Guinn of Nevada--reached out to the Congress asking for us to pass this bill, and they got no cooperation. The committee was ultimately able to overcome tremendous differences between CBO's cost estimate and OMB's cost estimate to reach agreement with the Office of Management and Budget on passing this emergency legislation last week, but not even that moved the Republican leadership to cooperate. So we go home tonight, and our small businesses--main street America--needlessly struggle to make ends meet, keep their doors open and employees on the payroll, because of partisan politics. For those who don't remember, this is emergency legislation to help small non-farm-related businesses across this Nation that are in dire straits because of drought conditions in their State. Just like the farmers and ranchers, the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops lose a lot of business because of drought. Right now these small businesses can't get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about government--bureaucracy. SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. Contrary to the Agency's position that drought is not a disaster, as of July 16, 2002, the day we introduced this bill, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. Unfortunately, the assistance was limited to farm-related small businesses. The 36 States include: Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. The situation has only gotten worse judging by SBA's own numbers. Since the bill was introduced, the SBA has declared disasters in two more States and the District of Columbia. Instead of rising to the occasion and using their statutory authority to help the small businesses in these areas, they continue to deny them access to disaster loans, hiding behind a legal opinion--a legal opinion that they will not provide to the committee. To make sure the facts of this legislation are accurate, let the record show that this bill does not expand the SBA disaster loan program. SBA already has this authority, and this bill simply restates and clarifies that authority to ensure that the law is applied fairly. Let the record show that SBA, contrary to its claims, has the expertise to determine when a drought is a disaster. First, the SBA already declares drought disasters and does so mainly by working with the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture. Second, in addition to working with the Secretary of Agriculture, there are existing SBA guidelines for declaring disasters, and those guidelines apply to drought too. For example, the Governor of a State can request a declaration from the Administrator of the SBA after certifying that more than five small businesses have suffered economic injury because of a disaster. Last, let the record show that this legislation is modest in cost. CBO estimated that this bill would cost $5 million per year for 5 years, far less than OMB's estimate of approximately $100 million per year. And last week, as I referenced earlier, we were able to reach an agreement with OMB that capped the cost at $9 million for fiscal year 2003, enough to cover the cost of the bill as passed by the committee and the Bond/Enzi/Burns/Crapo amendment. Unfortunately, even OMB's concurrence and the support of many Senators and Governors did not persuade the remaining Senator blocking passage of the bill to put aside his differences for the sake of small businesses and permit it to pass. I thank the many supporters of this bill. My 22 colleagues who are cosponsors--Senators Bond, Hollings, Landrieu, Baucus, Bingaman, Daschle, Johnson, Edwards, Carnahan Cleland, Enzi, Lieberman, Harkin, Ensign, Reid, Helms, Allen, Bennett, Torricelli, Levin, Crapo and Thurmond. All the Governors who put small businesses first and politics last. Mr. Donald Wilhite, director of the National Drought Mitigation Center at the University of Nebraska in Lincoln, for all his assistance to my staff in understanding the scope of drought in this country and for writing in support of the legislation. National Small Business United, for always being there to stand up for small businesses. The many small business owners and small business advocates, such as Wildlife Action, in South Carolina, who took the time to write me regarding the drought and their problems with the SBA. And last, but certainly not least, from my home State, I thank Bob Durand of the Massachusetts Emergency Management Association for his help and support. We will take this fight up again in the next Congress. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that several letters of support and my remarks be included in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to support the small business subsidy rate improvement bill before the Senate today. It is not perfect, but it takes us a step in the right direction. It takes us a step in the right direction by reversing a current 60-percent cut in loan dollars available to small businesses through the Small Business Administration's flagship 7(a) loan program, and it includes a budget change mid-year with OMB's blessing, which is unprecedented. However, it does not go far enough in correcting the way the government calculates the cost and fees of the SBA's small business loans. Specifically, the Administration would not also support our proposal to correct the errors in the subsidy rate used for the 504 development company loan program--errors that result in severe overcharging of thousands of dollars to 504 borrowers and lenders. As so many of us in the Senate, House and White House have heard for moths, the small business community supported the Senate's plan to enact a recommendation by the General Accounting Office as part of one of the continuing resolutions. However, that provision was blocked time and again by a few Republican Congressmen on behalf of the Administration. We are now faced with leaving small businesses strapped for financing until next year or enacting this bill that would put in place something called an econometric model to calculate the subsidy rate for the 7(a) program immediately, but for one year only. Our goal--that of Senator Bond, Senator Conrad, Senator Domenici, Senator Hollings, Senator Byrd, and myself--was to right years of wrong in which the government has played budget games with the two largest loan programs at the Small Business Administration. Our goal was to end a double-standard in which the government cooks the books but small businesses get penalized if a comma is missing on their financial statements. Our goal was to put transparency, accuracy, and fairness into a system that has overcharged small business borrowers and private-sector lenders more than $2 billion fees, fees that are tantamount to a tax on small businesses. Specifically, our goal, in technical talk, was to put in place budget systems in this fiscal year that would more accurately calculate the cost of providing loans through the SBA's 7(a) and 504 lending programs, thereby maximizing appropriations to leverage an additional $6 billion in small business loans and assessing fees that are more in line with the true cost of providing the loans. In the end, it would stimulate lending by creating a greater incentive for lenders to loan in these uncertain economic times, it would leave more money in the pockets of small businesses, and it would allow almost 190,000 jobs to be created or retained. There is a lot of concern among small business trade groups, bankers, and members of Congress about adopting an econometric model at this stage because the administration has not been forthcoming with supporting documentation and the estimated subsidy rates over the testing period have varied greatly. Without that information, it is unreasonable to expect the small business community to trust the government. They have been fighting this problem for too long to settle for mere promises, when promises have been broken time and again. In the coming months I look forward to working with the Administration to get this information and give all of us confidence that this model is more predictive and accurate. On the plus side, as I mentioned earlier, passing this legislation would reverse the 60-percent cut in the 7(a) loan program by patching together $6 billion in lending dollars. That restoration of loan dollars is significant on a micro and macro level. In my home state of Massachusetts, small businesses stand to lose $121 million in loan dollars and almost 3,700 jobs if this bill isn't passed. Nationwide, a loss of $6.2 billion in loans would translate into 189,000 jobs either lost or not created. In this economy, we can not afford to lose any more jobs or block job creation. To my many colleagues who have courageously fought for small businesses on this issue--from Senator Bond and Senator Conrad to Congressman Manzullo and Congresswoman Velazquez--I thank them. To the small business groups--from 7(a)'s NAGGL and 504's NADCO to the small business coalition lead by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which included among many others, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, National Small Business United, and the American Bankers Association--I am proud to work with them. Because of your grassroots efforts, probably every member of Congress knows what a subsidy rate is and how it hurts the small business community when it is left uncorrected year after year. Last, I thank the Office of Management and Budget for reaching this agreement with our Committee, the Committee on Small Business & Entrepreneurship, the Committee on Budget, and the Committee on Appropriations. I know they are strongly opposed, in general, to changes to their subsidy rates, and, in particular, to any adjustment to the budget mid-year. But, small businesses do not care about technicalities and budget intricacies; they care about access to capital. This bill accomplishes that. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be printed in the Record: a letter from the small business coalition; a letter to OMB from our Committee with the Committee on budget regarding this issue; and a letter from OMB Director Mitch Daniels regarding the FY2003 subsidy rate for the 7(a) loan program.

Mr. KERRY. Last, I want to remember Senator Wellstone, a true advocate for small business who faithfully attended our committee hearings and markups and worked hard to help the 7(a) and 504 programs not just on this issue, but every single time. His contributions were great, and I wish he were here to see this agreement pass.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Hollings and Senator McCain the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee for reaching an agreement with the House on the Maritime Transportation and Security Act of 2002, S. 1214. I am proud to have served as a conferee on this very important legislation that will significantly improve security in our Nations seaports. In addition the bill would reauthorize the Coast Guard, a major component in improving security in our ports and harbors. As Chairman of the Oceans, Fisheries and Atmosphere Subcommittee, I had the opportunity to chair an oversight hearing on the Coast Guard's role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators Hollings and McCain well know, even before September 11, our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. I wish to thank Chairman Hollings for including three provisions from S. 1587, the Port Threat and Security Act, which I introduced last year in order to improve safety and security in our nations ports. The first provision requires an annual report to the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists. This is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998, one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Also included from S. 1587, was my proposal on Sea Marshals. Sea Marshals would be authorized to be used on vessels as well as shore facilities both private and public to ensure safe transportation of high interest vessels into our ports, such as liquefied natural gas tankers and cruise ships. In Boston we have an LNG facility in the middle of Boston Harbor. Obviously we need increased security each time an LNG tanker offloads natural gas. Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as sea marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our Nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. In addition, this legislation would require a feasibility study to determine the potential to use other Federal, State or local law enforcement personnel as well as documented United States Merchant Marine personnel as sea marshals in the future. Finally, this legislation includes a provision that would require the administration to begin a vigorous foreign port threat assessment program. Inspectors would evaluate the effectiveness of security practices in both cargo and passenger terminals around the world. This legislation allows the United States to prohibit any vessel from entering the United States if the vessel has embarked passengers or cargo from foreign ports that do not have adequate security measures as determined by our port threat assessment teams. Last year, inspectors in Italy checking a container bound for Canada discovered a member of the al-Qaida terrorist organization hiding in a shipping container equipped with a bed and makeshift bathroom. The suspect, an Egyptian in a business suit, had with him a Canadian passport, a laptop computer, two cell phones, airport maps, security passes for airports in three countries and a certificate proclaiming him an airplane mechanic. We simply cannot allow any country to have such poor security such that terrorists can stow away in a shipping container. As I mentioned earlier this bill would also reauthorize the Coast Guard. The events of September 11 resulted in a new normalcy for the Coast Guard as port security and homeland defense missions rose to the forefront and our country realized the security shortcomings in our ports. This legislation recognizes this fact and authorizes nearly $6 billion for the Coast Guard in 2003. Obviously this country needs a viable and robust Coast Guard to safeguard our ports, and to ensure that commerce and trade can continue to occur in our ports, safely, efficiently and most importantly without terrorist incident. At the same time, the Coast Guard also has unique missions not covered by any other federal agency. It is the only U.S. military service with domestic law enforcement authority. It has the primary responsibility of enforcing U.S. fisheries laws, carrying out drug interdiction at sea, and protecting the marine environment against pollution. I want to make it clear that all of these missions are important. And these traditional missions are suffering from resource constraints. This bill would also increase authorization for Coast Guard personnel from approximately 35,000 today, which is roughly the size of the New York City Police Department to 45,500 by the end of this fiscal year. This bill would authorize $4.3 billion for operating expenses in FY2003. Operating expenses cover all of the various activities of the Coast Guard, from boater safety and drug interdiction to port security, and adequate authorization is necessary to ensure that all of these Coast Guard operations can be carried out effectively. This bill would also authorize $725 million in FY2003 for acquisition, construction, and improvement of equipment and facilities. Most of this funding will be used to fund the Deepwater Project, a long overdue modernization of the Coast Guard's Deepwater assets. The Coast Guard is the world's 7th largest navy yet they operate a fleet of ships that rank 39th in age out of the world's 41 maritime fleets. The Coast Guard is operating World War II-era cutters in the deepwater environment to perform crucial environmental protection, national defense, and law enforcement missions. In addition, Coast Guard aircraft, which are operated in a maintenance-intensive salt water environment, are reaching the end of their useful lives as well. Besides high operating costs, these assets are technologically and operationally obsolete. The Deepwater program will not only reduce operational and maintenance costs, but will significantly improve upon current command and control capabilities in the deepwater environment. I am delighted to see this program moving forward. Every day on average, the Coast Guard saves 14 lives, seizes 209 pounds of marijuana and 170 pounds of cocaine, and saves $2.5 million in property. Through boater safety programs and maintenance of an extensive network of aids to navigation, the Coast Guard protects thousands of other people engaged in coastwise trade, commercial fishing activities, and recreational boating. In addition, the Coast Guard has a role to play in Homeland Defense. It is vitally important that we adequately fund and staff all of the missions of the Coast Guard. This legislation, while not as generous as many of us would like, is a step in the right direction.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, on Monday I was privileged to stand with thousands upon thousands of veterans and their families who traveled to Washington to visit the Vietnam Wall for its 20th anniversary, to reconnect with those with whom we had served, and above all to honor our fallen brothers and sisters. These veterans, some of whom traveled for days and all at their own expense, proved something I think every American knows deep down in their heart--something that cuts to the quick of what we as Americans stand for--that part of being an American means keeping faith with our citizens and those heroes who gave so much to our country. That responsibility extends to those of us who have the honor to serve here in the Chambers of Congress. Today, my friends, after another Veterans Day where words of praise for America's veterans were spoken, at a time when it is an increasingly real possibility that more Americans will be sent into harm's way for their Nation, we must keep faith--in deeds and not just words--with the veterans of our country. We must do the duty we were sent here to do, as they did their duty wearing the uniform of our country. Because of a 111 year-old law, when our soldiers have returned from combat wounded, debilitated by illness, missing limbs, confined to wheelchairs--disabled for life these veterans have been told that their retired pay would be reduced dollar-for-dollar for any VA disability benefits they received. Yesterday the House and Senate reached a compromise on the issue of concurrent receipt in the National Defense Authorization Act. The authorization act has been held up for weeks because the administration has threatened a veto if concurrent receipt language was included in this bill. The compromise that was reached yesterday begins to correct the injustice created by this archaic law but it does not go nearly far enough. The compromise language applies only to veterans injured during combat, combat-oriented training, or certain other hazardous activities, with a disability rating of 60 percent or greater, and those with a rating of at least 10 percent if they received a Purple Heart. This compromise leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of anyone who believes we have a faith to keep with our veterans. On October 10, the House passed overwhelmingly a motion to instruct their conferees to accept the far more comprehensive Senate-passed concurrent receipt language--which would have provided all disabled veterans the full amount of their disability benefits and their retirement pay. There is strong bipartisan support for full concurrent receipt in both Chambers of Congress, yet because of the considerable pressure from this administration we have been forced to accept a compromise that will leave hundreds of thousands of our veterans behind. I cannot believe that this administration is willing to tell a veteran who, through service to his country, has suffered an injury leaving him 50 percent disabled, that he is not entitled to both disability compensation and retirement pay earned for 20 years of service. Military retirees are the only category of federal employees who are required to relinquish a portion of their retirement pay when they receive VA disability benefits. Not only does this practice unjustly penalize our disabled career soldiers--it weakens our military by effectively encouraging injured servicemembers to leave the military early in their careers. We have been working for years to right this wrong. This change in law is a beginning, but much remains to be done. The issue of compensation for our disabled veterans is only one aspect of a much larger problem--we are failing to meet our promises to the people who have so courageously served our country. Nothing punctuates this fact more than the ongoing financial crisis facing the veterans health care system. We must address simple mathematics. From 1996 to the present, the number of veterans seeking health care from the VA has grown from 2.9 million to 4.5 million, while the VA's health care staff has decreased from 195,000 to 183,000--forcing many veterans to wait 6 months or longer for care. But this administration's continued refusal to fully fund our VA has done nothing to help them hire new staff, let alone offer better care to our Nation's veterans. The overall thrust of their approach to this funding crisis has been to push reforms aimed at reducing enrollment in the veterans health system rather than providing the funds necessary to ensure that every veteran gets the best health care we have to offer. Even VA Secretary Principi identified a $400 million shortfall in the fiscal year 2002 budget of the VA health care system. But the administration requested only $142 million to compensate for this shortfall, and plans to make up much of the remainder of the shortfall by imposing ``efficiencies'' on a system that's already reached a crashing point. In July Congress passed $417 million for veterans health care as part of the fiscal year 2002 emergency supplemental--to reduce waiting times for health care, keep clinics open, and establish new Community Based Out-patient Clinics. But in August the President blocked $275 million of the amount provided by Congress, announcing the administration would only spend the $142 million it requested for VA health care. This is not the way to keep faith with our veterans. They are aging and in need of medicine and health care, they are sitting in our waiting rooms, and struggling to pay hefty bills and still afford rent and food. Many are homeless--in fact, nearly one quarter of all homeless Americans are veterans. By any measure, we are not doing enough for those who have done so much for us. That is why I am asking the Congress to provide full funding for veterans medical care in the fiscal year 2003 VA/HUD Appropriations bill. The committee reported bills in the Senate and House both provide $25.3 billion for the VA health system, an increase of $3.3 billion over the fiscal year 2002 level, and $1.8 billion more than the administration's request for 2003. Because we are not doing enough for our veterans, I am asking the Senate to reject the President's proposed $1,500 health care deductible for Priority 7 veterans included in his fiscal year 2003 VA/HUD budget. So far the House and the Senate have rejected the President's request to include this deductible in the VA/HUD Appropriations bill. I am also asking this body to join me in urging the administration to rescind the VA memo dated July 18, 2002 that ordered the directors of every veterans health care network in the country to cease outreach activities such as health fairs, open houses, newsletters, and public service announcements. And I ask the Senate to call on the VA to rescind its new regulations which require the rationing of health care. These regulations--which give priority for health care to veterans with service-connected conditions, without taking into account the medical needs of patients-- could add to the VA's red tape, making the already long waiting times at many VA facilities even longer. I believe it is also important the Senate join in supporting Senator Johnson's Veterans Health Care Funding Guarantee Act, which would assure adequate funding of these important priorities. Regrettably, this administration has launched an assault on Priority 7 veterans, those who lack a service-connected disability and whose income is higher than the current VA eligibility standard--$24,500 for a single person. Priority 7 veterans have grown from 2 percent of VA patients in 1995 to about 33 percent currently--a total of 1.6 million veterans. Although this increase coincides with the 1996 law that changed the VA's eligibility system, veterans have turned to the VA mainly because they have nowhere else to go for affordable prescription drugs. These are the same people who would benefit most from a Medicare prescription drug benefit--their incomes are too high for Medicaid, but too low to handle the health system's growing reliance on expensive prescription drugs. Where are our priorities when we are content with not passing a prescription benefit plan for our seniors--including these honorable men and women--and then say that we will not fight for adequate funding for our VA hospitals? I find these misplaced priorities disturbing and I think it high time we finally did something about it. We should remember the words of George Washington: ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation.'' Today, after one of the most meaningful days in our year, it is time for us to show our commitment to our veterans and, by doing so, show our soldiers that their service means something to this country and to this government--that we won't just send them into harms way and forget about them when they come home. We will remember their service and always keep faith.