John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I will. Mr. President, let me say pointedly, I have been here now for 18 years. And in the 18 years that I have been here, as the Senator from Alaska knows, there are certain kinds of issues that rise to such a level of both emotional as well as substantive quality and contest that they always require 60 votes. I have seen time after time on both sides of the aisle--it is just the difficulty here--if you have a contested issue, that is significantly contested on both sides, almost every time here it does not happen unless one side or the other musters 60 votes. It may be regrettable, but many people believe that is one of the great protections of the Senate, so we do not rush to do things that we regret or even as a way of protecting the minority. It is what our forefathers put in place. And I have said that I will exercise that privilege afforded us by the rules of the Senate. And that is what I intend to do on that subject.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I appreciate the question very much. I was not aware actually of the particular study to which the Senator has referred. But I appreciate it enormously because he is absolutely correct that the health issue is one of the most important issues. I call my colleagues' attention to the fact that the existing CAFE standards--the ones we passed in 1975--cut gasoline use. By cutting that gasoline use, incidentally, we cut almost the amount we were then importing from parts of the gulf. But we reduced the amount of hydrocarbon emissions, which is a key source of smog, and which is a key source of particulates, as the Senator from Arizona has just described, which particularly affects seniors and children. It affects all adults, but particularly we have seen an increase in the rise of asthma among children in the United States because of the quality of air that is being breathed. Higher gas mileage cars and trucks played a key role in virtually eliminating smog in Denver, which during the 1980s, as everybody knows, had a dangerous level of pollution. Los Angeles also gained enormously. And there is a huge gain in public health for the elderly and all asthma sufferers in the country. I thank the Senator from Arizona. He is absolutely correct. (Mr. CORZINE assumed the chair.)

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will ask the Senator a number of questions, if I might. First, the Senator quoted a study. It is the EIA study. The Senator quoted a study and suggested the study says you cannot reach 35 miles per gallon. Is the Senator aware that the study did not analyze the Kerry-McCain substitute at all, which seeks to get 36 miles per gallon but with a cushion for trading? Is he aware that was not even analyzed?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in 1972, 1973, and 1990, each time the auto industry has said: We cannot do this. They said it about seatbelts. They said it about laminated windshields. They have said it about every single requirement, each time Congress has agreed we ought to try to do these things. This is not arbitrary. Congress has made decisions about safety, fuel efficiency. We invited Ambassador Stuart Eizenstat to testify before our committee. In 1975, Mr. Eizenstat was the domestic policy adviser to President Carter. He was part of the team that developed the first CAFE standards. His testimony speaks very directly to this issue. I will quote from his testimony. He said: In spite of the obvious merits of the standards, the American automobile manufacturers were opposed to the regulations. I remember their opposition well. In my role as domestic policy adviser to President Carter, I was part of the team that developed the first CAFE standards. Those standards set the fuel economy levels for the period 1977 to 1985, starting at 18 miles per gallon in 1977 and rising to 27.5 in 1985. He said: I specifically remember a meeting in the Cabinet office with President Carter and the heads of the Big Three automobile manufacturers: Ford, General Motors, and Chrysler, in which all three strongly opposed the imposition of fuel economy standards. They claimed their companies lacked the technology to reach the standard that the administration had in mind. Does that sound familiar? Yet once the CAFE standards were implemented, all three companies met and exceeded the standards. I can imagine the pressure you are under from those same companies and others as you consider raising the standards. But as you embark on this process, I strongly urge you to recall our experiences in developing the first set of CAFE standards. You should feel confident that the automobile manufacturers do have the ability to achieve and, in fact, surpass whatever standards you set. I believe Ambassador Eizenstat has proven himself to be an enormously capable negotiator, and very studious, and I think most people would agree one of the most thoughtful contributors to positive dialog in the political process in this country. He said we should do this; we can do this. He testified before the committee, as, I might add, did countless other entities in this country that were affected one way or the other by the potential of this change.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would be delighted to answer the question. And, at the same time, may I say to the Senator, look, my question to him was whether or not a majority leader on the other side has circumvented. I did not ask him whether they met or not.

Mr. KERRY. And he has circumvented.

Mr. KERRY. May I say, it is not with any disrespect for the Senator from Alaska. I admire his tenacity. I know this means a great deal to him. We just happen to differ. And I think it is an issue that has to be resolved with those 60 votes.

Mr. KERRY. Is totally inaccurate?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, in his memory here--he has been here quite a while--is it not fair and accurate to say that when the Republicans were in control, the majority leader, on a number of different occasions, did exactly the same thing? Is that fair?

Mr. KERRY. Never circumvented?

Mr. KERRY. Is that accurate?

Mr. KERRY. I am going to answer. I am asking recognition to be able to do that, Mr. President.

Mr. KERRY. But it did not take into account what the benefits might be if, in fact, that happened again and we went back to the 1973 situation. So in effect the study does not take into account the potential of that major price differential. But much more important, is the Senator aware that the list of technology on which the assumption is based, that you cannot meet 35 miles per gallon, is a very different list from the list of technology available under the National Academy of Sciences? And is the Senator also aware that the study assumes that you include all 8,500-pound vehicles, which we do not include? So if you take out the 8,500-pound vehicles, the study of the Senator is completely inapplicable. Is he aware of that, that we do not have 8,500-pound vehicles in our proposal?

Mr. KERRY. That is not what I asked.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to make a brief statement about the Price-Anderson Act and our vote yesterday. The Price-Anderson Act, which was first enacted in 1957, limits the nuclear industry's liability in the case of an accident. Under current law, that limitation applies to all existing nuclear powerplants and would have continued to apply to all existing nuclear powerplants had the Senate not acted. The amendment the Senate passed yesterday extended the Price-Anderson Act's liability limitation to new nuclear powerplants. As I have said before, I support Price-Anderson for our existing fleet of reactors, and I support extending the life of those plants. However, I do question whether or not we need to extend this liability to new plants. I know that we are making progress in developing new, more economic and safer plants, such as the pebble bed reactors. Nevertheless, the jury is out. We don't know if these plants will be economical. We don't know whether they will need or should receive liability caps. We don't know what that liability cap should be. And we still have not solved the fundamental question of what we will do with nuclear waste. I believe we should answer that question before we build new plants and not simply leave that problem to future generations.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to help our nation's 8(a) Business Development, BD, and HUBZone firms compete more effectively in the Federal marketplace. This bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Kit Bond, stems from a 1997 commitment Senator Bond and I made to each other to seek equality between the Small Business Administration's, SBA, 8(a)BD program and the HUBZone program. Much has been made lately of the SBA's proposed rule to establish ``parity'' or equality between these two important programs. Some in the contracting community have opposed the proposed rule because they have concerns about the decline in the number of contracts and contract dollar values being awarded to 8(a)BD firms. I share the concerns of the contracting community in this regard, but I do not blame the HUBZone program for this decline. Rather, I blame the current procurement environment. In 1997, working with then-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, Senator Bond, I took the necessary steps to protect the 8(a)BD program. In my negotiations with Senator Bond, he agreed to change the legislation creating the HUBZone program from one of HUBZone priority to one of equality between the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. Further, we negotiated a 3 percent increase in the Federal Government's small business goal, raising it from 20 percent to 23 percent, in order to accommodate the HUBZone program, which when fully phased in for Fiscal Year 2003 will have a 3 percent governmentwide goal. This increase was put in place specifically to accommodate the HUBZone program and ensure that 8(a)BD firms did not lose Federal contracts to the HUBZone program. The fact remains, however, despite these protections, that 8(a)BD firms are experiencing a decline in Federal procurement, which some place as high as 34 percent since 1997. The cause of this decline has its roots in the new procurement environment created by the reforms in the mid-1990s, such as passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the regulatory changes to procurement programs in response to the Adarand Inc. v. Pena decision, and reductions in the acquisition workforce. Because negative trends hit minority-owned firms first and hardest, these small businesses have borne a disproportionate share of the percentage decline in Federal contract dollars being awarded to small businesses. To help combat the negative effects of procurement reform, I have been taking a very close look at the SBA's programs to assist small businesses, especially small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The legislation being introduced today is the first step in halting and reversing the decline brought about by procurement reform. This legislation specifically addresses two critical areas of the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. The first deals with the relationship between the two programs when a small business has received both an 8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification, the second deals with the sole- source threshold issue for these firms. First, an important factor in my decision to support the HUBZone legislation with the negotiated changes to protect the 8(a)BD program was the concept known as ``super-priority'' or ``priority-preference.'' The priority-preference stems from Congressional intent that firms that are both 8(a)BD and HUBZone certified receive a preference over a firm that has a certification in only one program. In addition, the priority-preference was intended to allow these firms to combine the price evaluation preference available to them under each program, with the understanding that any offeror would still need to meet a ``responsiveness'' test in terms of their offer. Unfortunately, the new rule proposed by the SBA does not include the priority-preference, and the SBA has issued guidance that states that the priority-preference has no statutory provision to support its creation. Although I strongly disagree with the SBA's decision to end the priority-preference, this legislation will rectify the situation by creating a statutory priority-preference for firms that have both an 8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification. Such a provision will help combine the benefits of each program and bring additional jobs and opportunities to underdeveloped areas. I view this provision as a win- win for the 8(a)BD and HUBZone contracting communities. Second, this legislation makes an important update to both the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs by raising the sole-source thresholds. One of the most important attributes of both of these programs is the authority for small businesses to receive contracts on a sole-source basis. This excellent benefit is limited, however, by a cap on the dollar amount for sole-source contracts. Currently, contracts for goods and services are limited to $3 million, while manufacturing contracts are limited to $5 million. This legislation updates those limits by $1 million for each category--an update that has been needed for some time and that Senator Bond and I nearly succeeded in including in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. By increasing the sole-source thresholds, the Federal government will immediately put more contract dollars into the hands of 8(a)BD and HUBZone firms. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, this legislation is merely one step in the process to help reverse the negative trends procurement reform has had on our nation's small businesses. It is my hope that we can move this legislation through the Senate quickly, and I would urge all of my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today I am introducing legislation to help our nation's 8(a) Business Development, BD, and HUBZone firms compete more effectively in the Federal marketplace. This bipartisan legislation, cosponsored by Senator Kit Bond, stems from a 1997 commitment Senator Bond and I made to each other to seek equality between the Small Business Administration's, SBA, 8(a)BD program and the HUBZone program. Much has been made lately of the SBA's proposed rule to establish ``parity'' or equality between these two important programs. Some in the contracting community have opposed the proposed rule because they have concerns about the decline in the number of contracts and contract dollar values being awarded to 8(a)BD firms. I share the concerns of the contracting community in this regard, but I do not blame the HUBZone program for this decline. Rather, I blame the current procurement environment. In 1997, working with then-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Small Business, Senator Bond, I took the necessary steps to protect the 8(a)BD program. In my negotiations with Senator Bond, he agreed to change the legislation creating the HUBZone program from one of HUBZone priority to one of equality between the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. Further, we negotiated a 3 percent increase in the Federal Government's small business goal, raising it from 20 percent to 23 percent, in order to accommodate the HUBZone program, which when fully phased in for Fiscal Year 2003 will have a 3 percent governmentwide goal. This increase was put in place specifically to accommodate the HUBZone program and ensure that 8(a)BD firms did not lose Federal contracts to the HUBZone program. The fact remains, however, despite these protections, that 8(a)BD firms are experiencing a decline in Federal procurement, which some place as high as 34 percent since 1997. The cause of this decline has its roots in the new procurement environment created by the reforms in the mid-1990s, such as passage of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act and the Federal Acquisition Reform Act, the regulatory changes to procurement programs in response to the Adarand Inc. v. Pena decision, and reductions in the acquisition workforce. Because negative trends hit minority-owned firms first and hardest, these small businesses have borne a disproportionate share of the percentage decline in Federal contract dollars being awarded to small businesses. To help combat the negative effects of procurement reform, I have been taking a very close look at the SBA's programs to assist small businesses, especially small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The legislation being introduced today is the first step in halting and reversing the decline brought about by procurement reform. This legislation specifically addresses two critical areas of the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs. The first deals with the relationship between the two programs when a small business has received both an 8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification, the second deals with the sole- source threshold issue for these firms. First, an important factor in my decision to support the HUBZone legislation with the negotiated changes to protect the 8(a)BD program was the concept known as ``super-priority'' or ``priority-preference.'' The priority-preference stems from Congressional intent that firms that are both 8(a)BD and HUBZone certified receive a preference over a firm that has a certification in only one program. In addition, the priority-preference was intended to allow these firms to combine the price evaluation preference available to them under each program, with the understanding that any offeror would still need to meet a ``responsiveness'' test in terms of their offer. Unfortunately, the new rule proposed by the SBA does not include the priority-preference, and the SBA has issued guidance that states that the priority-preference has no statutory provision to support its creation. Although I strongly disagree with the SBA's decision to end the priority-preference, this legislation will rectify the situation by creating a statutory priority-preference for firms that have both an 8(a)BD and a HUBZone certification. Such a provision will help combine the benefits of each program and bring additional jobs and opportunities to underdeveloped areas. I view this provision as a win- win for the 8(a)BD and HUBZone contracting communities. Second, this legislation makes an important update to both the 8(a)BD and HUBZone programs by raising the sole-source thresholds. One of the most important attributes of both of these programs is the authority for small businesses to receive contracts on a sole-source basis. This excellent benefit is limited, however, by a cap on the dollar amount for sole-source contracts. Currently, contracts for goods and services are limited to $3 million, while manufacturing contracts are limited to $5 million. This legislation updates those limits by $1 million for each category--an update that has been needed for some time and that Senator Bond and I nearly succeeded in including in the Small Business Reauthorization Act of 2000. By increasing the sole-source thresholds, the Federal government will immediately put more contract dollars into the hands of 8(a)BD and HUBZone firms. As I mentioned earlier in my statement, this legislation is merely one step in the process to help reverse the negative trends procurement reform has had on our nation's small businesses. It is my hope that we can move this legislation through the Senate quickly, and I would urge all of my colleagues to lend their support.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I speak in support of a sense of the Senate Resolution honoring the work and dedication of Milton D. Stewart, the first Chief Counsel for the Office of Advocacy at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Today, March 5, 2002 Milt turns 80 years-old and it is only fitting that we pass this Resolution in honor of his commitment to America's small businesses. I am pleased to say that this bi-partisan Resolution has been sponsored by myself and Ranking Member Bond, along with a great majority of the members of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. I am also pleased that this Resolution has been cleared for passage and I thank the floor staff for their quick work in facilitating passage of this Resolution. One of the most highly successful innovations of the House and Senate Small Business Committees came twenty-six years ago with the creation of the Office of Advocacy within the Small Business Administration. This Office was established to represent and advance small business interests before other Federal agencies and even with Congress. Congress recognized the importance of small business to the competitiveness of the American economy and understood that government sometimes can get in the way of small businesses doing what they do best--creating jobs. Advocacy has done a commendable job looking out for the interests of small business. It is, ironically, a government agency that has the task of making sure that other government agencies take into account the special problems and needs of small businesses as those agencies go about their rule-making activities. Over the years, Advocacy has had a great deal of success and its hand has been strengthened by further Congressional action, such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act in 1980 and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act in 1996. This success is due in no small part to the solid beginnings of the Office of Advocacy under the leadership of the very first Chief Counsel for Advocacy, Milton D. Stewart. Milt, in his tenure as Chief Counsel, laid the groundwork for the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the first White House Conference on Small Business, the Small Business Innovation Development Act, and many other programs that are now considered part of the core small business policy within this country. He came by his small business roots honestly. He spent his youth in a family-owned small business begun and managed by his father and mother. Early on, he acquired great respect for the skill and courage of small business entrepreneurs. Later in his life, Milt served at one time or another as President of the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies, President of the National Small Business Association, and as President of the Small Business High Technology Institute. Milt also had significant government service beginning with the Office of War Information during World War II. He was even a staff member of the original Senate Committee on Small Business. He served as special counsel to Governor Harriman of New York and to the New York State Thruway Authority. All of this preceded his tenure as the first Chief Counsel for Advocacy. While he was Chief Counsel, his charisma and vision inspired many of those who worked with him to catch the ``small business bug'' and to direct their energies toward helping develop sound small business policy for our Nation. They, and we, owe Milt a deep debt of gratitude. The Office of Advocacy is fortunate to have had such a sound beginning. Those of us who care deeply for small business policy recognized how crucial Advocacy has become to sound regulatory debate within our country. The Office is a sterling example of an experiment that worked and continues to work to this day. Milt, who deserves all the best on his birthday, can certainly take pride in the legacy that he has left by setting all the precedents that made the Office of Advocacy what it is today--an effective voice promoting the best interests of small business within our government.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the majority leader for setting aside this time. I am particularly grateful to all my colleagues who have taken part in this special tribute. I am quite confident that my colleague would think otherwise, but I don't think there has been a word of excess. There has been an extraordinary commonality in the comments of everybody, a sense of the Senator's instinct for this place, a sense of the Senator's obvious accomplishments through the years he has been here, his commitment, his passion, his effort to change things for the better for other people. But through everybody's comments, in the end I think what is most striking and perhaps most important, and most important for us to think about as Senators, is the humanity and the way in which he has touched the lives of citizens and the lives of his colleagues. We are very grateful. I am confident all my colleagues will join me in saying if you think the last 40 have been pretty terrific, you probably haven't seen anything yet. As Senator Dodd said, there is a lot of territory yet to be covered. We are grateful that Senator Kennedy is going to be there to cover it.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island and recognize the Senator from Connecticut for such time as he may use. I understand Senator Biden may be on his way.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Utah for his comments. Let me say, we on our side will forgive him for his complete misunderstanding and misinterpretation of our party, precisely because of his affection and respect for our good friend, Senator Kennedy. We thank him for that. I will recognize the Senator from New Jersey for such time as he will consume, and then the Senator from Georgia, and, finally, the Senator from Rhode Island. We will close with the Senator from Connecticut. I know we are out of time. I ask unanimous consent to proceed for such time as we need to complete these remarks.