John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Thank you for that clarification, Senator Baucus. It is important that we make these programs work for all of America's workers, and I look forward to working with you to make that happen. It is my understanding that the Administration is preparing letters specifically outlining TAA eligibility for fishermen, and I look forward to receiving those very soon.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will support this final conference report to give the President the authority to negotiate nonamendable trade agreements and to reauthorize the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program. I am pleased that this TAA package provides greater benefits to more workers than ever before. The Nation's economy is fundamentally linked to our Nation's ability to export. Today, one-tenth of all jobs in this country are directly related to our ability to export goods and services. When you consider multiplying effects, that number rises to nearly one-third. Businesses in Massachusetts alone sold more than $19.7 billion worth of goods to more than 200 foreign markets last year. That is more than $3,000 worth of goods sold abroad for every resident. Massachusetts businesses also help break the stereotype of international trade as the arena of large corporations. Almost 75 percent of my State's exporting businesses are small businesses. Of larger businesses which have overseas subsidiaries, almost three- fourths of profits earned abroad are returned to parent companies in the United States. That means more jobs and higher wages at home. These statistics present a strong case for support of this bill. I believe strongly that more international trade results in a greater occasion to help developing countries grow and develop the roots of democracy. The chance to improve ties with other countries and use trade as one means of advancing American foreign policy is an opportunity that we should not pass up. And so I will support this conference report. However, we do ourselves a great disservice to ignore the growing concerns of our own people who view the trade equation as imbalanced: Working families in mill towns across New England or steel towns in the Midwest who fear that we have looked only at the export side of the puzzle, ignoring our fundamental obligations to a clean environment, basic labor standards and to those Americans whose lives change when factories close or businesses cannot compete with cheaper foreign- produced products. Some important safeguards were in the Senate-passed bill. Indeed, the bill that passed the Senate in May was precedent-setting in many ways. We would have provided trade promotion authority to the President while also firmly stating that our Nation's trade remedy laws should not be eviscerated by trade agreements. Significantly, we provided the strongest safety net ever to workers left jobless by the short-term economic upheaval that comes from increased international trade. We also had a thorough debate on the importance of labor and environmental standards in trade agreements, and on my efforts to prevent investor- State disputes from undermining U.S. public health and safety laws. I have no doubt that the Senate will come back to these issues in the future. Unfortunately, this conference report represents a mild retreat from the Senate-passed bill. The conference report does not protect American trade remedy laws. The safety net for workers is less comprehensive than it could have, and should have, been. It still does not adequately preserve American sovereignty in directing trade negotiators how to develop settlement panels for investor-State disputes. As a result, we can only hope that our trade negotiators will not undermine the values that many Americans worry are not being honored in our trade agreements. To be quite honest, though, I have some concerns that the President will not make a full commitment to either the environment or the basic rights of workers in future trade agreements, because he has not done these things at home. And so it must fall to the Senate to put the President on notice that he must address the concerns that Americans have about trade. I, for one, will be watching agreements that grow out of this trade promotion authority very closely. I must make one more point. With respect to the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, this bill is not as good as the one the Senate passed 3 months ago. But this bill does expand benefits for workers who lose their jobs due to increased foreign competition in ways that, frankly, would have been inconceivable just a few years ago. That is real progress. If we are to continue to seek the benefits of increased trade, we must also fulfill our commitment to families and communities whose lives are disrupted by the short-term impacts of trade. I am particularly disappointed that the conference report did not retain the important new program making TAA available to fishermen. This program was included in the TAA bill marked up by the Finance Committee last December and included in the bill that passed the Senate in May. U.S. fish imports now outstrip exports by $7 billion, due in some measure to the fact that no other nation in the world requires sustainable fishing practices. This deficit may soon put some fishermen out of business. While a separate program for fishermen makes sense, the administration has informed me that fishermen who seek TAA benefits through the Department of Labor will indeed be eligible, although they may have to seek a blending of TAA and Workforce Investment Act benefits. Nonetheless, I have the Department's pledge to work with me on this issue, and I look forward to doing just that. I have also been informed that the Secretary of Agriculture will do a rulemaking to determine whether fishermen are eligible for the TAA for Farmers program as well. I will make sure that the Secretary is aware of my strong belief that fishermen are no different from farmers, and deserve equivalent consideration in this program. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be made a part of the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take this opportunity to engage in a colloquy with the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus and the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux. I would like to congratulate you both on your work in the Finance Committee and particularly thank you for your dedication to passing a strong Trade Adjustment Assistance bill. This is a strong step forward for U.S. workers indeed; however, I would like to seek your clarification as to whether fishermen are eligible for the program.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have shortage of childcare in this country, and it is a problem for our families, a problem for our businesses, and a problem for our economy. The Census Bureau estimates that there are approximately 24 million school age children with parents who are in the workforce or pursuing education, and the numbers are growing. There has been a 43 percent increase in dual-earner families and single parent families over the last half a century. As parents leave the home for work and education, the need for quality childcare in America continues to increase. As Chairman of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I think we can foster the establishment and expansion of existing child care businesses through the Small Business Administration. Today with Senators Harkin and Landrieu, I am introducing, the Child Care Lending Pilot Act, a bill to create a four-year pilot that allows small, non- profit child care businesses to access financing through SBA's 504 loans. Non-profit child care small businesses already have access to financing through the SBA's microloan program, which many of us made possible through legislation in 1997. Microloans help with working capital and the purchase of some equipment, but there is also a need to help finance the purchase of buildings, expand existing facilities to meet child care demand, or improve facilities. It is appropriate to provide financing through the 504 program because it was created to spur economic development and rebuild communities, and child care is critical to businesses and their employees. Financing through 504 could spur the establishment and growth of child care businesses because the program requires the borrower to put down only between 10 and 20 percent of the loan, making the investment more affordable. As anyone with children knows, quality childcare comes at a very high cost to a family, and it is especially burdensome to low-income families. The Children's Defense Fund estimates that childcare for a 4- year-old in a childcare center averages $4,000 to $6,000 per year in cities and states around the nation. In all but one state, the average annual cost of childcare in urban area childcare centers is more than the average annual cost of public college tuition. These high costs make access to child care all but non-existent for low-income families. While some states have made efforts to provide grants and loans to assist childcare businesses, more must be done to increase the supply of childcare and improve the quality of programs for low-income families. According to the Child Care Bureau, state and federal funds are so insufficient that only one out of 10 children in low-income working families who are eligible for assistance under federal law receives it. For parts of the country, when affordable child care is available, it is provided through non-profit child care businesses. I formed a task force in my home State of Massachusetts to study the state of child care, and of the many important findings, we discovered that more than 60 percent of the child care providers are non-profit and that there is a real need to help them finance the purchase of buildings or expand their existing space. Child care in general is not a high earning industry, and the owners don't have spare money lying around. Asking centers to charge less or cut back on employees is not the way to make childcare more affordable for families and does not serve the children well. An adequate staff is needed to make sure children receive proper supervision and support. Furthermore, if centers are asked to lower their operating costs in order to lower costs to families, the safety and quality of the childcare provided would be in jeopardy. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation so non-profit childcare providers can access funds to start new centers or expand and improve upon existing centers. Allowing non-profit childcare centers to receive SBA loans will be the first step toward improving the availability of childcare in the United States. Non-profit childcare centers provide the same quality of care as the for-profit centers, and non-profit centers often serve our nation's most needy communities. I hope that my colleagues will recognize the vital role that early education plays in the development of fine minds and productive citizens and realize that in this great nation, childcare should be available to all families in all income brackets. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and several letters of support be printed in the Record. These letters demonstrate that this is a good investment that is good for our country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation to bring greater honor and prestige to our most valiant veterans. This legislation, the Congressional Medal of Honor Act, will require the use of 90 percent gold in the metal content of the Medal of Honor. You may be surprised to learn that while foreign dignitaries, famous singers, and other civilians receive an approximately $30,000 medal-- the Congressional Gold Medal, our most valued veterans receive a $30 medal. The cost difference lies in that the Medal of Honor consists primarily of brass plated slightly with gold. These American heroes deserve better and it's certainly the least we can do to honor their service. The cost of the proposal would be minimal. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the total cost of the bill would be $2 million for a five-year period during which the new medals would be designed, produced and stockpiled. Our legislation would allow the approximately less than 1,000 living recipients awarded the Medal, or their next of kin, to receive a replacement Medal. Amelia Earhart once said that ``Courage is the price that life exacts for granting peace.'' In helping us win our peace, we should truly honor our bravest heroes by giving them the Medals they deserve.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Tuesday evening the Boston City Council lost one of its most capable and well-liked members, Councillor Brian Honan. I rise today to join with his family, constituents and staff in mourning the loss of this universally loved man. His brief time with us proved that politics can make a difference in people's lives, that the values of a small neighborhood can help guide a city, and that integrity and humility can transcend disagreements and carve out common ground. You don't have to search far to see what Brian stood for. There are two structures in the Allston neighborhood of Boston that stand as the pillars of his dedication and commitment he brought to public service. The West End Boys and Girls House sits on the opposite side of Ringer Park from Mary and Patrick Honan's home on Gordon Street, and together these two buildings symbolize the values of family and community that guided Brian through the public life he led and loved. Prior to being elected to the Boston City Council in 1995, Brian served as a Suffolk County Assistant District Attorney for six years under District Attorney Ralph Martin. Brian coordinated the prosecution of 15,000 cases a year in the Roxbury District and through his dedication and tenacity rose to be a supervisor in both the Roxbury and Dorchester District Courts. Motivated by a fierce instinct to bring violent criminals to justice, Brian created fast-track prosecutions for domestic violence and gun-related crimes and helped bring swift justice to those who put our families and communities in danger. Once sworn-in to the Boston City Council in 1996, Brian served with distinction as Chair of the City Council's Committee on Banking & Community Investment and the Committee on Residency. Through these committees, Councillor Honan co-sponsored an order to provide relief from costly prescription drug costs for Boston's seniors and helped increase housing and commercial opportunities by increasing much-needed capital improvement funds. Brian also fought for the Living Wage Amendment, sponsored legislation to preserve affordable housing for seniors, and co-sponsored the Domestic Partnership legislation. It is on the streets and in the homes of Allston-Brighton where Brian's most lasting achievements can be seen. After becoming a member of the West End House when it first opened its Allston Street location in 1971, Brian stood with his older brother Kevin as its most passionate advocates and defenders. As a councillor, he helped Allston- Brighton build a shining new library in Allston and a brand new Oak Square YMCA facility in Brighton, which will stand as two enduring symbols of the dedication he brought to elected office. As a leader on such initiatives as the Allston-Brighton Area Planning Action Council and the Allston-Brighton Healthy Boston Coalition, Brian demonstrated his enduring commitment to helping children, seniors and families have an enjoyable and productive life. From the classrooms of St. Patrick's High School to Boston's courtrooms, Brian demonstrated a quiet strength that makes his premature departure all the more painful. Together with my constituents across Boston, I treasure the time we shared with him. I join with his family and friends in mourning his passing.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader. (The remarks of Mr. Kerry are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I regret to come to the floor today with a concern that I find absolutely extraordinary--even shocking. This is a memorandum which represents an extraordinary broken promise to the veterans of our country. I want to share it with my colleagues who I think would share with me a sense of outrage over what is contained in this memorandum. This is a memorandum from Laura Miller, Under Secretary of Veterans Affairs for Health for Operations and Management, which she circulated on July 18. It orders the directors of the Veterans Health Care Network in the country to end their veterans outreach activities. Let me read from the memorandum. It says specifically: In this environment, marketing the VA services with such activities as health fairs, and veteran open houses to invite new veterans to the facilities, or enrollment displays at VSO meetings are inappropriate. Therefore, I am directing each network director to ensure that no marketing activities to enroll new veterans occur within your networks. In other words, the promise made to veterans and their families that these services will be available to them--and many of them don't know exactly what all the services are--that is why we put into place the outreach efforts in order to guarantee that people aren't denied those services which they might have forthcoming. Those services are not now going to be provided. They are not going to be reaching out to veterans to make them aware of them. I find that absolutely extraordinary. There are approximately 70 million people who are potentially eligible for VA benefits and services because they are veterans and family members or survivors of veterans. They stand to lose those benefits because the VA is simply going to hide or retreat from reaching out in the way that all of us here in Congress specifically codified and put into law that they do. I know the Secretary of Veterans Affairs is a Vietnam veteran and is a distinguished, decorated veteran. I absolutely can't believe that he knows this went out. I can't believe that it went out under his order, particularly when you compare it to his own statement on the VA Web site. There is a statement by the Secretary that says: Our goal is to provide excellence in patient care, veterans' benefits and customer satisfaction. We have reformed our department internally and are striving for high-quality, prompt and seamless service to veterans. With respect to ``prompt,'' in this memo the Deputy Under Secretary says: The most recent enrollment shows a 13.5 percent increase in users this year compared to the same time last year, and a 15 percent increase in enrollment while expenditures rose 7.8 percent. Against the outcome of this situation is a waiting list for patients to be seen in many clinics across the country and general waiting times that exceed VHA's standard of 30 days. Moreover, actuarial projections indicate a widening gap in the demand versus resource availability. ``Demand versus resource availability''--those of us from New England sat with the Secretary several months ago and made it clear to the Secretary that there is an increasing crisis in our VA system because of the lack of resources. The ``greatest generation'' veterans--those of World War II--are now demanding services of the VA in greater numbers than before. Our military efforts these days are increasing the awareness and the need of many people who served for those services. Yet here we are being told we have demand that is exceeding the resources. The resources don't have to be exceeded. That is a matter of budgeting priority of this administration. There are many areas where it is obvious that the administration has decided it is more important to put money, rather than for the veterans, and in order to keep the promise to the veterans of the country. In today's Greenfield Recorder in Massachusetts, a VA spokesperson said the reason the VA has cut these services is ``because right now we can't give them the kind of care that they deserve.'' That is an extraordinary statement in the face of the current situation with troops in Afghanistan and other parts of the world, with the increasing demand of our military and with potential operations in Iraq that are the subject of hearings before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today. Under Secretary Miller's memorandum notes that enrollment has increased by some 15 percent. So the budget ought to reflect that. The budget ought to reflect that we need to keep the promise to our veterans. The fact is, almost every single budgeting effort in the last few years has been inadequate for the VA. The VA has consistently received less funding than necessary facing this growing demand. In the fiscal year 2002 budget, there was initially an $80 million shortfall for veterans medical care in New England alone. And although this region has confronted the most severe shortages, the situation throughout the country has been similarly bleak. This year, and in previous years, colleagues in the Senate have fought to try to up that amount of money. Last week, Congress passed a supplemental with some additional $417 million, but the fact is, the increase in this year's spending is not adequate to meet the demand. It is critical that we provide veterans services to nearly 5 million veterans in 2003. It is almost so obvious that it should go without saying, but I hope this is going to be reversed immediately. I hope the administration is going to keep America's promise to our veterans. And I hope they will plus up that budget sufficiently to meet the demand and to keep faith with the promise made already to the past several generations of veterans and the promise that is today being made to the next generation of veterans. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I regret that I will be opposing Judge Smith's nomination. I regret that this nomination has become a lightning rod for so many. Let me state at the outset that I disagree very strongly with Judge Smith's rulings on a number of cases. I find serious fault with his stated comments on the Violence Against Women Act. In a 1993 speech, Judge Smith told the Federalist Society that he viewed VAWA as unconstitutional. The text of those remarks read in part ``There is no legitimate constitutional source for this new-found `civil right' to be free from physical violence.'' I cannot overstate my objections to his callous view of domestic violence. I understand that Judge Smith has received the American Bar Association's rating of ``well qualified.'' I also understand that Judge Smith has strong support across the political spectrum in western Pennsylvania, his home. We have heard his friends in the Senate point out that he is a respectful, friendly and unbiased judge. These are important qualifications, and I do not doubt them. However, we must look beyond such qualifications when considering a nomination of this importance. It is critically important that a judge on a Circuit Court of Appeals, the court of last resort for the vast majority of cases, have an ethically spotless record. In 1992, Judge Smith testified under oath that he would leave the Spruce Creek Rod and Gun Club within a couple of years if he could not change the rules of the club preventing women members. He did not do that. It was not until the seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to which he now seeks appointment became vacant that he resigned his membership in the club. To this day he denies any wrongdoing. However, several prominent judicial ethicists have pointed out that he clearly violated the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges. There is a model for cases such as Judge Smith's involvement in the Spruce Creek club. Judge Kenneth Ryskamp was denied an appellate court seat in 1991 because of his membership in a country club whose bylaws were uncertain regarding membership diversity. In 1986, he was nominated to be a district court judge, he declared himself to be a member of a club whose bylaws clearly exclude women. He also told the Judiciary Committee that he would resign from that club. He did so almost immediately. Unfortunately, this example stands in stark contrast to the actions of Judge Smith. Judge Smith also conducted himself poorly in not immediately recusing himself from two cases involving Mid-States Bank which was both his wife's employer and a bank in which he owned significant stock. During his hearing he did agree that he erred in not recusing himself sooner, which I do appreciate. But nevertheless, he exercised judgement that was questionable at best. The Court of Appeals is the court of last resort for thousands of critical cases each year. Judges who serve there must be in the highest moral standing. Judge Smith's failure to follow-through on a promise to the Senate in a timely matter and his handling of cases involving Mid- States bank are disappointing and call into question that moral standing. Therefore, I reluctantly must oppose his nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am disappointed that the Senate was unable to pass the Graham-Miller-Kennedy amendment last week, as it would have established a comprehensive prescription drug benefit for our Nation's seniors. I strongly supported the Graham-Miller-Kennedy plan, as I believe it offered the best solution to the problem our senior citizens face in finding a way to afford the prescription drugs they need to stay healthy. Given the failure of the Senate to pass the Graham-Miller-Kennedy amendment, which I voted for, I now lend my support to the low-income, catastrophic benefit proposal that has been offered by my colleagues, Senators Bob Graham and Gordon Smith. While I would rather the Senate take a stand in support of a more comprehensive benefit, the Graham-Smith amendment marks an important first step in making sure that our country delivers on the promise that Medicare made to our Nation's seniors almost 30 years ago. Medicare was enacted in 1965, under the leadership of President Lyndon Johnson, as a promise to the American people that, in exchange for their years of hard work and service to our country, their health care would be protected in their golden years. But that promise has not been fulfilled. Across our country, millions of seniors have cried out for help in paying for their prescription medication. Too many of our parents and grandparents confess that they are unable to afford the drugs their doctors prescribe for them. Too many of our parents and grandparents have to choose between paying for their rent, getting their groceries or buying the medicine they need to stay healthy. Prescription drug expenditures are skyrocketing--with the drug prices facing seniors growing at four times the rate of inflation. These costs are forcing our Nation's elders to pile into buses, and travel into Canada and Mexico where they can purchase the medicine they need for 30 percent less of the cost in the United States. These costs are driving Americans across our borders to obtain the prescription medications our very own pharmaceutical companies have developed here at home. I appreciate the biotechnology revolution being driven publicly, by the National Institutes of Health, and privately, by the pharmaceutical industry. The advancements in modern medicine are truly spectacular, and many of the most inspiring discoveries are being made by biotechnology companies in my own State of Massachusetts. I am proud of the work being done in my state and across the country. With continued investment in research, scientists predict that we may be 5 to 10 years away from major breakthroughs in medical treatment for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. But I ask, of what consequence are medical discoveries if they never leave the laboratory or move beyond the shelf of a local pharmacy? The Graham-Smith amendment will help move those medications from pharmacy shelves into the hands of the seniors whose lives depend on them. Graham-Smith offers all seniors protection against high drug bills, establishing Medicare coverage of all drug costs incurred over $3,300. In addition to catastrophic coverage, the Graham-Smith proposal will provide every senior, regardless of income, up to a 30 percent discount on drugs purchased before they reach the $3,300 stop-loss. For low-income seniors, the Graham-Smith plan provides special assistance, covering all drug costs for those beneficiaries below 200 percent of the Federal poverty level. The Graham-Smith amendment will provide protection to all seniors against the high cost of prescription drugs. It is not the ideal solution, but it targets the seniors who need help the most. The sickest seniors will be protected from out-of-control costs, which every senior needs as insurance against a serious illness. Seniors with low incomes are guaranteed the drugs they need so they don't have to choose between prescription drugs and other necessities. This amendment provides a solid first step toward the goal of providing a comprehensive, reliable Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of the Graham-Smith amendment. But let us not abandon our goal of establishing a more complete prescription drug benefit. Graham-Smith is a good first step, but we must continue the journey. Unless we establish a comprehensive Medicare drug benefit, the health of an entire generation will continue to be in jeopardy. We must act to deliver on that promise that President Johnson made 25 years ago. Our Nation's seniors deserve no less.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I have asked Senator Feinstein to add me as a cosponsor to her bill, S. 1523, which would amend the Social Security Act to permanently repeal the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision. I am pleased to support my colleague Senator Kennedy and others in their support of this bill. Massachusetts is one of 15 states in which the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision hits employees and retirees particularly hard, because it is one of the few remaining states where many state employees, such as teachers, do not pay into the Federal Social security system. Rather, they pay into a state pension fund. For many workers, the formulas in the law that reduce Social Security benefits for these workers can have troubling and unintended consequences. Listen to the testimonial of one educator from my state. This constituent writes: I served 13 years in the military and am a wartime veteran. I did not receive a military pension; however, I did pay into Social Security. I am shocked to learn that I may receive virtually nothing from Social Security. My teaching pension in Massachusetts will be small if I retire at 60 with only 22 years of teaching service. I had previously thought that Social Security would help to make up for the smaller teaching pension. I feel that the Federal government is unfairly penalizing those who have embarked on second careers as teachers. They have created a disincentive that will work against filling projected teaching shortages. I feel especially cheated as I did sacrifice much during my military career. It is obvious that I would be much better off financially had I not served at all. I hope this is not the message that the government wants to send. The government pension offset has a significant impact on the benefits of many retired public employees just like this one. For example, a disabled former school employee and widow who retired in 1986 receives $403 a month from her school pension. That income results in the elimination of a $216 monthly Social Security survivor's benefit, to which she would otherwise be entitled. As a result, her total income is about 70 percent of the Federal poverty level. Another constituent, a retired widow who worked as a school cook, receives $233 a month from her school pension. Her Social Security widow's benefit is reduced by $155 because of the automatic offset. Her combined total income is about 76 percent of the Federal poverty level. It is clear that the GPO and WEP, complex though they are, are causing pain and confusion. They also negatively impact teacher recruitment efforts, at a time where we sorely need teachers, yet the potential reduction in Social Security benefits makes it unlikely that people will turn to teaching for a few years at the tail end of their careers. Consider the irony: Individuals who have worked in other careers are less likely to want to become teachers if doing so will mean a loss of Social Security benefits they have earned, and yet our State and Federal policies are aimed at recruiting just those individuals to teaching as a second career. Retired teachers are also reluctant to return to teaching to help fill urgent needs because of the impact of the GPO and WEP. Finally, there is a fear that current teachers are likely to leave the profession to reduce the penalty they will incur upon retirement. The reforms that led to the GPO and WEP are almost 20 years old, nearly a generation. They were passed before many of us were members of this body. Now that were are witnessing some of the impacts these 20- year old decisions are having on people's lives, we understandably want to help our constituents, and I support that effort. However, while I support the repeal of the GPO and WEP, I know that if we continue to address Social Security issues on a piecemeal basis, even expanding benefits as certain social needs dictate, without fixing the program's underlying imbalances and demographic challenges, we will make real reform more difficult when the time finally comes. However, for the reasons outlined above, and the effect the provisions are having on my constituents, I believe it is essential that the GPO and WEP be repealed, preferably as part of an overall reform to Social Security, but by themselves if need be. My State, and others affected by the GPO and WEP, cannot afford to provide disincentives to be teachers or other public servants at this critical time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to submit a Senate resolution with my good friend and the chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, Mr. Jeffords of Vermont. We are pleased to be joined by Senators Boxer, Lieberman, Akaka, Murray, Durbin, Cantwell, Torricelli, Feingold, Leahy, and Bingaman in submitting this resolution. The World Summit on Sustainable Development, WSSD, will take place August 26-September 4, 2002 in Johannesburg, South Africa. The WSSD will bring together tens of thousands of participants, including governments, environmentalists and business leaders. The WSSD is timed as the tenth anniversary of the groundbreaking United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, UNCED, held in Rio de Janiero in 1992. The overall goal of the WSSD is to assess the progress of countries in implementing the commitments made at Rio and to reinvigorate the global commitment to sustainable development. Among the core accomplishments of the Rio conference were ``Agenda 21,'' which provides a comprehensive framework for achieving sustainable development, including chapters on protecting the atmosphere and the oceans, and the Rio Declaration which sets forth principles such as the need for a precautionary approach in environmental protection. Also at Rio, several important international conventions were opened for signature: the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCC, and the Convention on Biological Diversity, CBD, both of which were ultimately signed by the United States, with the UNFCC also ratified by the U.S. Senate. I cannot emphasize how critical this world summit is. As a planet we need to find a way forward, with countries large and small, rich and poor working together, to agree on steps that protect the environment yet allow our economies to grow sustainable. This resolution that I am offering today urges the administration to make this summit a priority, and to support the goals of sustainable development. This includes supporting specific, concrete targets and timetables for implementing the broad goals of Agenda 21, and a host of other common sense issues that should be addressed at the WSSD. The United States must be a leader in demonstrating its commitments to these goals, and in showing the world that economic growth can occur consistent with improved environmental quality. The resolution also calls on the United States to take a leading role both at the Summit as well as in other appropriate venues in negotiating binding international agreements to address the very real threat of global climate change, as well as agreements to address critical oceans and fisheries issues facing the world today. This summit is a real opportunity for our Nation. It is my hope that the Bush Administration will recognize it as such and work with the international community to develop a host of measures that will make this planet a better place to live.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, just to inquire, are we going to go back and forth? I didn't know the Senator had the right to yield successive periods of time.

Mr. KERRY. I understand.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for the time. I listened to the Senator from Tennessee, who is also a physician, speaking a moment ago. All of us have heard the complaints of doctors, of individuals, with respect to premiums. One wishes we were fashioning a remedy to some of the problems within the medical system that fits. This is not a remedy that fits. This is, in fact, an excuse for people who have always tried to liberate malefactors of one kind or another from responsibility to the legal system through the normal court process that is part of our Constitution. People don't like being sued--of course not--so they try to find a way, statutorily, to limit their liability for things that they do wrong. The fact is, this particular remedy is not going to deal with the problem, No. 1, and, No. 2, it unfairly double victimizes American citizens who are the victims of some kind of incident of malpractice or of medical error from being able to seek the appropriate redress for that and being able to keep the level of accountability in our system which only, today, is provided by that capacity to be able to bring suit. In fact, in our Patients' Bill of Rights, we directly passed the right to sue nursing homes and HMOs, which Americans want, when they are unfairly treated. This amendment even reaches to undo that right which the Senate granted but which we have not yet, obviously, put into law. The fact is, this is not a serious approach to the problem that our physician, Senator, fellow Member, has articulated. Yes, there are some high premiums, but the president of the American Tort Reform Association has been quoted as saying: We wouldn't tell you that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates. So the McConnell amendment will not result in lower premiums, which is what they are screaming about. In fact, California, which enacted medical malpractice tort reform in 1974, has malpractice premiums 19 percent higher than the national average. So why are medical malpractice insurance premiums rising? Let's look to what the Wall Street Journal tells us--not known for its liberal stance on tort reform. In a June article, they stated: Even doctors are beginning to acknowledge that the conventional focus on jury awards deflects attention from the insurance industry's behavior. According to the International Risk Management Institute, the reason premiums are rising is because throughout the 1990s insurance companies cross-subsidized low premiums with profits from investments. This enabled them to lower the premiums to attract more policyholders. Now the economy has slowed and investment profits have dried up, and investing decisions, not tort claims, bear the responsibility for rising premiums. Moreover, medical malpractice insurance costs, as a proportion of national health insurance care spending, amounts to less than 60 cents per $100 spent. We should ask any American whether they are prepared to pay 60 cents of the cost of medical care of all the hundred dollars that are spent in order to know that, if something is done wrong to them, they have the right of redress. Moreover, it is false to state that claims have ``exploded'' in the last decade. Closed claims, which include claims where no payout has been made, have remained constant, while paid claims have averaged just over $110,000. Meanwhile, this is the most important point----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, incidents of medical errors are growing. Countless Americans risk serious injury because of mistakes made in hospitals and in other places. Medical errors occur all over the system. In hospitals alone, the Institute of Medicine has reported that between 44,000 and 98,000 Americans are killed by medical errors annually. Using the 44,000 figure, medical errors are the eighth leading cause of death in the United States, more than breast cancer and more than AIDS. So I think to take away from Americans the single available tool they have to try to make the system be accountable, in the absence of any other responsible effort, is wrong. Using the 98,000 figure, medical errors would be the fifth-leading cause of death in this country. As the IOM report puts it, These stunningly high rates of medical errors--resulting in deaths, permanent disability and unnecessary suffering are unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to do no harm. Now, clearly, some medical errors are the direct result of physician negligence and many are not. But it is clear that we ought to think long and hard before placing an arbitrary cap on the financial value of human life. Knowing that the McConnell amendment would have virtually no impact on insurance premiums, let's look at the merits of the legislation: The amendment before us is not simply about preventing excessive malpractice actions. When the Senate flipped to Democratic control a little more than a year ago, the Senate finally passed a real Patients Bill of Rights. For the first time, the Senate sought to hold HMOs truly accountable for their actions. But this amendment would severely limit suits not only against standard medical malpractice actions, but also actions against HMOs and nursing homes. This amendment is extremely broad in scope and is directly opposite of the Senate's position on the Patients' Bill of Rights. The amendment's restrictive statute of limitations are similarly misguided. The amendment reduces the amount of time a patient has to file a lawsuit to 2 years from the date the injury was discovered. So if someone contracts HIV through a negligent transfusion but learned of the disease 5 years after the transfusion, he or she would be barred from filing a claim. This statute of limitations would cut off claims for diseases with long incubation periods. Even shareholders, investors and others have 5 years under the just-enacted accounting reform bill. This amendment would also punish injured patients who have prudently purchased insurance policies to protect themselves and their families. Senator McConnell would require a judge to reduce the amount of damage award by all collateral sources, such as life or disability insurance payments. So if you are thoughtful enough to purchase health care--a growing difficulty for too many Americans--you will be less likely to be compensated for someone else's negligence. This just does not make sense. I know how difficult is for hospitals to find specialized doctors and nurses today. The Nation's shortage of nurses has reached crisis stage, and we do need to keep experienced health care professionals on the job. But this amendment will not help control malpractice premiums. I am prepared to talk about reasonable ways to do this. In Massachusetts years ago we put in a screening system. There are many ways to approach this, but this is an arbitrary limit, which will be unfair to the average American and will not result in lowering premiums.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will fix a flaw in Medicare's claims processing system that currently denies thousands of cancer patients timely access to lifesaving treatments. This legislation will ensure that administrative delays do not force Americans with cancer to wait to be treated with existing innovative drug therapies that stand to improve and prolong their lives. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, recently granted fast track authority to a new class of cancer therapies. These therapies, which combine immunotherapy and radiological treatments, offer promise and hope for many cancer patients. Under current Medicare policy, however, reimbursement for FDA-approved drugs in an outpatient setting does not begin until Medicare issues a billing code for the drug. Consequently, there is often a delay of several months between FDA approval of and patient access to a drug. Prior to the designation of a Medicare billing code, doctors will not prescribe innovative treatments for patients in an outpatient setting for fear of their being denied reimbursement by Medicare. However, within the inpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse hospitals immediately after FDA approval. Given this discrepancy in current policy, I am introducing legislation that will allow doctors to submit claims retroactively and require Medicare to pay for innovative drugs administered in hospital outpatient settings immediately after FDA approval. Cancer patients cannot afford to wait for drugs that have the potential to improve their health and even save their lives. For Americans battling cancer, time is of the essence. This legislation will provide cancer patients with both the hope and the opportunity to live longer and healthier lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to introduce legislation today that will fix a flaw in Medicare's claims processing system that currently denies thousands of cancer patients timely access to lifesaving treatments. This legislation will ensure that administrative delays do not force Americans with cancer to wait to be treated with existing innovative drug therapies that stand to improve and prolong their lives. The Food and Drug Administration, FDA, recently granted fast track authority to a new class of cancer therapies. These therapies, which combine immunotherapy and radiological treatments, offer promise and hope for many cancer patients. Under current Medicare policy, however, reimbursement for FDA-approved drugs in an outpatient setting does not begin until Medicare issues a billing code for the drug. Consequently, there is often a delay of several months between FDA approval of and patient access to a drug. Prior to the designation of a Medicare billing code, doctors will not prescribe innovative treatments for patients in an outpatient setting for fear of their being denied reimbursement by Medicare. However, within the inpatient setting, Medicare will reimburse hospitals immediately after FDA approval. Given this discrepancy in current policy, I am introducing legislation that will allow doctors to submit claims retroactively and require Medicare to pay for innovative drugs administered in hospital outpatient settings immediately after FDA approval. Cancer patients cannot afford to wait for drugs that have the potential to improve their health and even save their lives. For Americans battling cancer, time is of the essence. This legislation will provide cancer patients with both the hope and the opportunity to live longer and healthier lives. I urge my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I strongly support the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 because it will help end the corporate abuses that in recent months have plagued our economy and will help restore confidence in our economy. I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation for the efforts that Senator Paul Sarbanes, Chairman of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, has made to develop and enact this important legislation. As a former member of the Banking Committee, I know how difficult it is to respond quickly to recent events that affected our capital markets. However, Senator Sarbanes has put together a coalition which led to a unanimous vote in support of his bill in the Senate, and the provisions of which is the base text for this conference report. The United States must stand for the fairest, most transparent and efficient financial markets in the world. However, the trust and confidence of the American people in their financial markets have been dangerously eroded by the emergence of serious accounting irregularities by some companies and possible fraudulent actions by companies like WorldCom, Inc., Enron, Arthur Andersen and others. Some investment banks have been charged with publicly recommending stocks for public purchase that their own analysts regarded as junk. The shocking malfeasance by these businesses and accounting firms has put a strain on the growth of our economy. The misconduct by a few senior executives has cost the jobs of hard-working Americans, including 17,000 at WorldCom and thousands more at companies accused of similar wrongdoing. The lack of faith in our financial markets contributed to an overall decline in stock values and has caused grave losses to individual investors and pension funds. For example, the losses to the California Public Employees Retirement System from the recent WorldCom disclosures total more than $580 million. The conference report creates a new Public Company Accounting Oversight Board to oversee the auditing of companies that are subject to the federal securities laws. The Board will establish auditing, quality control, and ethical standards for accounting firms. The conference report restricts accounting firms from providing a number of non-audit services to its audit clients to preserve the firm's independence. It also requires accounting firms to change the lead or coordinating partners for a company every five years. The conference report requires CEOs to certify their financial statements or face up to 20 years in prison for falsifying information on reports. It keeps executives from obtaining corporate loans that are not available to outsiders. It requires public companies to provide periodic reports to the SEC on off-balance transactions, arrangements, obligations and other relationships that may have a material current or future effect on the company's financial condition. It requires directors, officers and 10 percent equity holders to report their purchases and sales of company securities within two days of the transaction. I am pleased that the conference report includes the Corporate Fraud and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act which will provide for criminal prosecution and enhanced penalties of persons who defraud investors in publicly traded securities or alter or destroy evidence in Federal investigations. It will also prohibit debts incurred in violation of securities fraud laws from being discharged in bankruptcy and protect whistle blowers who report fraud against retaliation by their employers. The conference report requires the SEC to adopt rules to foster greater public confidence in securities research including: protecting the objectivity and independence of stock analysts who publish research intended for the public by prohibiting the pre-publication clearance of such research or recommendations by investment banking or other staff not directly responsible for investment research; disclosing whether the public company being analyzed has been a client of the analyst's firm and what services the firm provided; limiting the supervision of research analysts to officials not engaged in investment banking activities; protecting securities analysts from retaliation by investment banking staff. The provisions included in this legislation will help restore confidence in our capital markets and in turn will help provide for future economic growth. It is an important first step, not a last. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the Conference Report and will continue to look for ways to improve investor confidence in our financial markets.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last month I attended the dedication of the Massachusetts Vietnam War Memorial in Worcester, MA where I joined my fellow veterans and their families to memorialize the 1,537 heroes from Massachusetts who gave their lives in Vietnam. During the ceremony, I was passed a copy of a poem Mrs. Eileen Moreno wrote in honor of her son, Sergeant John H. Moreno, whose name graces the Place of Names in Worcester. John Moreno, who grew up in Brookline, loved baseball and the Red Sox, and planned to attend art school so that he could teach art at an elementary school, was like so many brave young men and women who gave so much to their families, communities, and country. With her compelling tribute to her son, Mrs. Moreno reminds us all of the high price of freedom, a price paid both by the soldiers who went thousands of miles away to protect our Nation and the families who remember their loved ones. I thank her for passing along these words of tribute and respectfully ask unanimous consent to print her poem, ``Memorium--Elegy for a Son,'' in the Record so that others may read her beautiful words.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am extremely pleased that the Senate is considering final passage of the Nurse Reinvestment Act, a bill I originally introduced with my colleague, Senator Jeffords, in April of 2001. I commend the chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, for his efforts in seeing this legislation through the Senate. In addition, I wish to recognize the invaluable contributions Senators Mikulski, Hutchinson, Frist, Gregg and Clinton made to the final version of the legislation that is before us today. This legislation is important for nurses and patients, and essential to ensuring that our health care system can function at its best. Upon passage, the Nurse Reinvestment Act will increase the number of nurses in our country, and also ensure that every nurse in the field has the skills he or she needs to provide the quality care patients deserve. I congratulate all of my colleagues for their work on this measure and for the contribution it will inevitably make to the health our nation. The Nurse Reinvestment Act is long overdue. Our country is facing a severe nursing workforce shortage. Every type of community--urban, suburban and rural--is touched by it. No sector of our health care system is immune to it. Across the country, hospitals, nursing homes, home health care agencies and hospices are struggling to find nurses to care for their patients. Patients seeking care have been denied admission to facilities and told that there were ``no beds'' for them. Often there are beds, just not the nurses to care for the patients who would occupy them. Our nation has suffered from nursing shortages in the past. However, this shortage is particularly severe because we are losing nurses at both ends of the pipeline. Over the past five years, enrollment in entry-level nursing programs has declined by 20 percent. Lured to the lucrative jobs of the new economy, high school graduates are not pursuing careers in nursing in the numbers they once had. Consequently, nurses under the age of 30 represent only 10 percent of the current workforce. By 2010, 40 percent of the nursing workforce will be over the age of 50, and nearing retirement. If these trends are not reversed, we stand to lose vast numbers of nurses at the same time that they will be needed to care for the millions of baby boomers enrolling in Medicare. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support the recruitment of new students into America's nursing programs by funding national and local public service announcements to enhance the profile of the nursing profession and encourage students to commit to a career in nursing. In addition to recruiting new nurses, our legislation will reinvest in nurses who are already practicing by providing them with education and training at every step of the career ladder and at every health care facility in which they work. It will ensure that nurses can obtain advanced degrees, from a B.S. in Nursing to a PhD in Nursing. It will place nurses in internships and residencies where they can receive the specialized clinical training they need to respond to the complex health care needs of today's patients. Our bill will also help train nurses in geriatrics to ensure that our health care providers are prepared to care for the needs of our nation's growing senior population. Finally, the Nurse Reinvestment Act will create, for the first time in history, a National Nurse Service Corps. Like the National Health Service Corps, the NNSC will administer scholarships to and repay the loans of students who commit to working in a health care facility that is experiencing a shortage of nurses. In urban, suburban and rural communities across the country, where facilities turn away patients due to staff shortages, the NNSC will send qualified nurses to serve and provide the care that patients deserve. Our country boasts the best health care system in the world. But, that health care system is being jeopardized by the shortage plaguing our nursing workforce. Indeed, state-of-the-art medical facilities are no use if their beds go unfilled and their floors remain empty because the nurses needed to staff them are not available. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will not only increase the numbers of new nurses in our country, but also ensure that every nurse has the skills he or she needs to provide the high quality care that makes our health care system the best in the world. I urge my colleagues to join me and the bill's cosponsors in supporting final passage of this important legislation. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce a critical piece of legislation intended to help small businesses receive their fair share of the Federal procurement pie and to ensure that they are being treated fairly within the Federal procurement system. I would like to thank my cosponsors, Senators Bond, Cleland, Cantwell, Bingaman and Carnahan for working with me and small business groups to craft this legislation, as well as Congressman Albert Wynn, for his partnership on this legislation. Congressman Wynn will soon be introducing companion legislation in the House. In my time as Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and previously as Ranking Member, two facts regarding small business procurement have made themselves very clear, small businesses are not getting their fair share of Federal procurement and there is no one in the entire Federal Government with the sole responsibility of advocating for small businesses, governmentwide, in the procurement process and ensuring that Federal agencies and large business prime contractors treat small businesses fairly. Some individuals are responsible for portions of this job, but no one performs this role as their primary job function or has the authority to do so solely. I felt this was a glaring oversight and looked to the current make-up of the SBA to see if it could be rectified. My solution is a new position modeled along the Small Business Administration's, SBA, regulatory ombudsman, which could focus solely on procurement matters. A new ombudsman for small business procurement, or the Small and Disadvantaged Business Ombudsman, is needed to fill this role for procurement matters, just as the SBA's National Ombudsman does for regulatory issues. By creating a parallel position, each ombudsman can focus on his or her key mission, without detracting from either regulatory or procurement issues important to the small business community. While no legislation alone can ever solve the complex problems faced by small businesses in today's Federal procurement environment, I believe the creation of a Small and Disadvantaged Business Ombudsman at the SBA will put us firmly on the right track and address several procurement issues raised through program oversight and communication with small business owners. For example, small businesses frequently contact my office to report problems they are having with a prime contractor or a contracting agency. Too often, these businesses are afraid to come forward and make an official complaint for fear of being blackballed and denied future contracting opportunities. The SDB Ombudsman will provide one solution for these small businesses who fear being blacklisted by allowing them to submit confidential complaints. The SDB Ombudsman will have the responsibility of tracking these complaints and trying to rectify them. The SDB Ombudsman will also work to change the culture at Federal procuring agencies by tracking and reporting on the training of procurement personnel and working to ensure that this training not only includes the ``How to's'' of small business participation, but also includes training on why small business participation is crucial to agency success and the national economy. Until the Federal Government, at all levels, realizes the importance of doing business with small business, small business participation in Federal procurement will continue to decline, our Nation will lose its access to a wide range of small business suppliers, and small businesses across the country will continue to lose billions of dollars in procurement opportunities year after year. Of critical importance in the legislation is the first statutory consequence of an agency failing to meet its small business goals. Under the legislation, if an agency fails to meet any small business goal, the agency would be required to submit a report and an action plan to the SDB Ombudsman detailing why the agency failed to meet its small business goal or goals, and what the agency intends to do to remedy the situation. The SDB Ombudsman will also be responsible for tracking compliance with Section (k) of the Small Business Act, which stipulates, in part, that the Director of the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization at each Federal agency shall report to the head or deputy head of the agency. Late last year, with the support of Ranking Member Bond, I sent a letter to 21 Federal agencies to gauge compliance with this provision. Using a very lenient standard of compliance, I have concluded that at least nine of the Federal agencies surveyed are in violation of Section (k) of the Small Business Act. This is unacceptable. On June 19, 2002, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship help a roundtable to discuss Federal procurement policies. The roundtable, title ``Are Government Purchasing Policies Hurting Small Business?'' was attended by a wide range of small business advocates, small business owners and government officials. One of the topics discussed during the roundtable was my draft proposal, the SDB Ombudsman Act, to create a new position at the SBA to monitor Federal agency compliance with certain provisions of the Small Business Act and serve as a focal point to assist small businesses that were treated unfairly in the Federal procurement process. During the Roundtable, I asked the participants for their recommendations on how to improve the legislation to ensure that the SDB Ombudsman serves as the most effective advocate possible for small business. The Committee record was also kept open for two weeks so that participants could submit further comments. I have now reviewed the Committee record and further submissions and am pleased to say that the responses were very positive. Several important suggestions were made to strengthen the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization at each Federal agency as an important corollary to the creation of the SDB Ombudsman, since the SDB Ombudsman would be relying on each OSDBU to fulfill his or her statutory responsibilities. Many other small businesses have come to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship and requested that we strengthen the OSDBUs at each agency as well. This legislation fulfills that request by including six new provisions. First, the legislation clarifies that OSDBU Directors shall report to the highest level at each agency. In the study I mentioned previously, too often, an agency cited a bifurcated reporting system whereby the OSDBU Director reports to the head or deputy head on small business matters, but to other, lower-ranking personnel for budgetary or personnel matters. The Small Business Act does not envision such a system. Therefore, I felt it necessary to clarify, in no uncertain terms, that the OSDBU Director must report to the head or deputy head of his or her agency only, for all matters. Second, the legislation requires that all OSDBU Directors now be career personnel. The Director's position is one of advocacy, which often entails challenging co-workers and political personnel, including superiors. Under current law, OSDBU Directors may be political appointees. While this has worked in some instances, I believe the small business community would be better served by career personnel with job protections. Third, the legislation requires the OSDBU Director to be well- qualified in assisting small businesses with procurement matters. No one disputes the expertise of Federal procurement officials; however, procurement expertise does not always translate to small business procurement expertise. This provision will help ensure that small businesses are being served by those who understand their particular procurement needs. Fourth, the legislation requires that, at major Federal agencies, the OSDBU Director have no job responsibilities outside the scope of the authorizing legislation. This provision was included because far too many agencies assign the OSDBU Director title to their procurement chief or another official with similar responsibilities, while the actual OSDBU program is run by someone else. This provision will stop this abuse. Fifth, the legislation requires that a procurement chief not serve as the Director of the OSDBU program at a Federal agency. I firmly believe that the OSDBU Director's goal is fundamentally different from, and at times even opposed to, that of a chief procurement official who must be fair to all Federal contractors. An OSDBU Director's role is one of advocacy. He or she must take the side of small business, and no procurement chief can do this and perform both jobs fairly and effectively. While OSDBU Directors at major Federal agencies are barred from having additional responsibilities under this legislation, non- major Federal agency OSDBU Directors may. This provision will help ensure that at our non-major Federal agencies, the OSDBU Director can act fairly on behalf of small businesses. Sixth, the legislation provides statutory authority for the OSDBU Council. Under the legislation, each OSDBU Director will have membership on the Council, which will meet at least once every two months. The Council's role is to discuss issues of importance to the OSDBUs and the small business community they serve. OSDBU Directors serving at major Federal agencies have as a part of their responsibilities an obligation, under this legislation, to attend Council meetings. This provision was included to once again prevent Federal agencies from circumventing the Small Business Act. Attendance at Council meetings will help ensure that Federal agencies are complying with the law and that OSDBU Directors are small business advocates, not simply procurement personnel with two hats. One final note on the legislation is that the inclusion of a provision to increase the governmentwide small business prime contracting procurement goal from 23 percent to 30 percent has been retained, although it will now be phased in over three years: 26 percent in FY 2004, 28 percent in FY 2005 and 30 percent in FY 2006 and thereafter. When I first made the suggestion that the small business procurement goal should be increased seven percentage points, my office received numerous calls, both in support of the increase and in opposition. Some even suggested raising the goal to a level of 40 percent. But, by and large, those in opposition pointed to one fact: The Federal Government has never achieved such a level of small business procurement participation. And while that is true, no one said that it was impossible. Given the disappointing achievement of the Federal Government on the current small business goal of 23 percent, I believe it is time to raise the bar. When Congress enacted goals as part of the Small Business act, the goals were intended to be a minimum standard of achievement. For too long, the goals have been treated as a target for attainment, not a minimum level of acceptable small business participation. This too must change. Almost every year the Federal Government comes very close to hitting the small business prime contracting goal of 23 percent right on the head. Some years it does slightly better, and some years, unfortunately, it does slightly worse. However, this trend demonstrates one important principle, the government is firmly shooting for 23 percent, no more--no less. By raising the statutory goal, it is my hope that the Federal Government will shoot for the higher target and succeed. But I ask my colleagues to look at this critically in that the goal for small business isn't so much being raised as the 77 percent of Federal procurement that now goes to large businesses, which represent only a tiny portion of all Federal contractors, is being reduced to 70 percent. So if the small business goal should increase to 30 percent, 70 percent of all Federal procurement will still be awarded to a relatively small number of all Federal contractors. Is this fair to small business? No. But it is an improvement. I am pleased to say that my legislation is supported by groups representing primarily small businesses or small business contractors, such as the National Small Business United, NSBU, Women Impacting Public Policy, WIPP, and the Association of Small and Disadvantaged Business, as well as advocacy groups such as the Latin American Management Association, LAMA, the Minority Business Enterprise Legal Defense and Education Fund, MBELDEF, and the Veterans of Foreign Wars, VFW. I thank them as well as the cosponsors of this legislation, Senators Bond, Cleland, Cantwell, Bingaman and Carnahan for their assistance, input and support, and I look forward to continuing to work with them on this and other important issues. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the Small and Disadvantaged Business Ombudsman Act be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce emergency legislation to help small non-farm businesses across this Nation that are in dire straits because of drought conditions in their State. They need assistance, particularly access to working capital to pay the bills and meet payroll, but they can't get it because they are falling through the cracks of Federal disaster loan programs. Why? Well, this is hard to believe, but it is because a drought is not considered a disaster under the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program, and under the Department of Agriculture's disaster program, which does consider a drought a disaster, only agriculture-related businesses are eligible for disaster assistance. This assistance is critical to the survival of thousands of small businesses that make their living in tourism and recreation industries, as well as other industries dependent on water. Droughts are a cruel phenomenon of nature. They are out of the control of a small business owner, and it isn't fair that they aren't eligible for Federal disaster assistance but the victims of floods, fires, and hurricanes are. With a very small change, we can make all the difference to affected small businesses. Specifically, I propose amending the Small Business Act in order to make a drought a disaster. More than 30 States are struggling with drought right now, according to the National Drought Mitigation at the University of Nebraska, and far more than agricultural, forestry and livestock businesses are hurt. If you talk to the governors of your States, I am sure they will tell you how bad the situation is. In northern Massachusetts, we have been in a drought since last fall. In South Carolina, the conditions are so bad that small businesses dependent upon lake and river tourism have seen revenues drop anywhere from 17 to 80 percent. The victims range from fish and tackle shops to rafting businesses, from restaurants to motels, from marinas to gas stations. For those who are listening and discount the serious impact of drought on small businesses, ask the rafting businesses that went bankrupt in Texas in 1996. The rivers were so low that these established businesses lost everything. I thank my colleagues who are cosponsors, Senators Hollings, Landrieu, Baucus, Bingaman, Daschle, and Johnson. I invite my other colleagues with droughts in their States to cosponsor this bill and call on the Administration to work with our Committee in passing this emergency legislation before we go home for the break in August. These small businesses cannot wait. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, due to a longstanding commitment I was necessarily absent for the vote on cloture on the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002 (S. 2673). Although my vote would not have affected the outcome, had I been present, I would have voted for cloture on the bill.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank my colleague.