John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Jeffords, Hutchinson and Mikulski in re-introducing the Nurse Reinvestment Act. This legislation 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. We are in the midst of a serious 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 in search of 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 Naiton 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 lucartive 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 our Nation's nursing programs. The bill will fund national and local public service announcements to enhance the profile of the nursing profession and encourage students to commit to a career in nursing. Our legislation will also expand school-to-career partnerships between health care facilities, nursing colleges, middle schools and high schools to show our youth the value of a nursing degree. Our legislation will ensure that barriers to higher education do not dissuade Americans who are interested in nursing from pursuing a degree in the field. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will support education for students who need help getting-up to speed on math, science and medical English. Our legislation will also ensure that there is support for single moms and dads with children who need a hand in daycare or a lift in getting to their classroom because they are without transportation. Still, is it not enough to simply encourage more individuals to enter the nursing profession, we must also ensure that our schools of nursing have enough professors to teach them. The Nurse Reinvestment Act provides for a fast-track facility development program, which encourages master's and doctoral students to rapidly complete their studies through loans and scholarships. Individuals receiving financial assistance through the fast-track faculty program must agree to teach at an ascredited school of nursing in exchange for this assistance. 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 enable nurses to access the specialty training they require to learn how to treat a specific disease or utilize a new piece of technology. Our bill will also help colleges and universities develop curriculum in gerontology and long-term care so that nursing students can pursue concentrations, minors and majors in this growing field of health care and be ready to apply their knowledge to the current and future senior population. To assist institutions in providing advanced education and training for nurses across the career ladder, our bill will strengthen the partnerships between colleges of nursing and health care facilities. Grants will be available to support such initiatives as the teaching of a course in gerontology in the conference rooms of a hospital or nurusing home. Grants will also support the use of distance learning technology to extend education and training to rural areas, and specialty education and training to all areas. The Nurse Reinvestment Act will authorize, for the first time in history, a National Nurse Service Corps. Separate from, though modeled after, the National Health Service Corps, the NNSC will administer scholarships to 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 of 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 not only seeks to increase the numbers of new nurses in our country, but also ensures that all nurses have the skills they need to provide the high quality care that makes our health care system the best in the world.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today on S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. This legislation provides help to small businesses hurt by the events of September 11th and to small businesses suffering in the weakened economy. Senator Bond and I have spent months trying to uncover who is behind the serial holds that have been placed on this emergency legislation and work out disagreements. This bill hasn't been ``hustled through,'' as some contend. It was drafted with the input of small business organizations, trade associations and SBA's lending and counseling partners through more than 30 meetings and conference calls--conference calls because we couldn't ask folks to fly in the immediate weeks after the attacks. It is cosponsored by 18 of the Small Business Committee's 19 members. And overall 62, senators, including 20 Republicans, have joined me in cosponsoring S. 1499. On the House side, the Committee on Small Business passed the companion to S. 1499. We attempted to move this bill quickly because it is emergency legislation. It is a good bill because it can do a lot for a lot of people. It is being held because of shameful politics. I say let's bring this bill up for a vote. Small businesses have a right to know exactly who is working against them and who is working for them. So what happened? On October 15th, when this legislation had cleared both cloakrooms for passage, the Administration had the Republican cloakroom put a last-minute hold on the bill so the Administration could announce its approach the next day. The next morning, the Administration lifted its hold, but a new hold was immediately placed by the junior Senator from Arizona, which he stated in the press was on behalf of the Administration. Last week, the Senator from Arizona lifted his hold, and I thank him for that, but unfortunately, we then learned that there was one or more anonymous Republican holds on the bill. This approach makes it very difficult to try to work out objections. Two other Republican senators told me that their objections were solely based on the Administration's problems with the bill. Therefore, I directed my staff to meet with the Administration, learn their concerns and try to reach a compromise so that this bill could pass before the recess. Last night, Senator Bond and I joined our staffs as they met with representatives of the Administration for the eighth time. I am very disappointed to report that the Administration came to the table and said that, although we had made some progress, it would not negotiate further. The ultimatum was for us to strike entire sections and provisions critical to the relief provisions of our bill. Specifically the Administration's representatives said: ``We cannot work with you on Section 6.'' That is the entire stimulus portion of S. 1499. As such, we were asked to eliminate the provision that would make it less expensive for small businesses to get loans and provide incentives to lenders to make these loans. We were told that, in their view, there is no credit crunch for small businesses. ``We cannot work with you on Section 10.'' Section 10 establishes a fund to help small businesses that were shut out of their Federal work sites or have suffered delays in accessing those sites because of national security measures. We offered to set it up in any way they thought it could work and to reduce its $100 million authorization level, but the Administration refused to work with us on that section. ``We cannot work with you on refinancing non-SBA business debt.'' This was an important part of the disaster relief that S. 1499 targets to those at ground zero in NY and VA, those located in airports and those adversely affected by Federal security actions. The Administration was unwilling to make this help available to these disaster victims. The administration can not go further in providing an incentive to small business lenders by reducing the lenders' loan fee by more than one-tenth of one percent. Despite numerous articles in reputable newspapers such as the New York Times, it is the Administration's view that lenders do not need incentives to make small business loans in this economic downturn. Senator Bond and I, as well as the 61 other cosponsors of S. 1499 believe that both lenders and small business borrowers need a break to encourage these loans to be made. With this capital, small businesses will stay in business and continue to employ people. Without it, we can expect greater business failures and bankruptcies. Senator Bond and I asked them to meet us halfway, and they said no. We asked them to give us alternative language, and they didn't give us any. We spent more than 20 hours negotiating on this bill and it appears as if the Administration never had any intention of finding common ground. It appears as if it was an exercise in delay. Let me describe briefly where I disagree with the administration about how to help small businesses battling bankruptcy and employee layoffs triggered by the terrorist attacks and economic downturn. The administration believes that all assistance should be delivered through the SBA's disaster loans, which are administered through only four regional offices. From talking to small businesses and SBA lenders, Senator Bond and I have concluded that small businesses would be better served through a combination of disaster loans and government guaranteed loans. Government guaranteed loans are almost five times cheaper than what the administration has proposed, have less exposure for the taxpayer, and can reach more small business owners because they are delivered through more than 5,000 private sector lenders who know their communities and have experience making SBA loans. Our proposal combines public and private sector approaches to ensure small businesses receive the maximum amount of assistance. We will never agree on each other's approach, mostly because the administration has told us in meeting after meeting that it does not believe there's a credit crunch and that small businesses are not having difficulty in accessing credit. They don't acknowledge articles, surveys and testimonials that state it has become harder and more expensive for small businesses, particularly minority and women-owned small businesses, to get loans over the past year. They ignore the surveys by the Federal Reserve that say, ``40 percent of domestic banks reported tighter standards [when lending to small businesses] over the past three months, up from 32 percent in August.'' Please keep in mind that this survey was released in October and doesn't even capture the affects of September 11. They ignore articles from economic authorities such as the Wall Street Journal. I read this last week on the floor but think it is absolutely worth repeating. Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, November 6th, 2001. Here are the words of Mr. John Rutledge, Chairman of Rutledge Capital in New Canaan, CT, and a former economic advisor to the Reagan administration: Interest rate reductions alone are not enough to jump-start this economy. We need to make sure cheaper credit reaches the companies that need it. . . . The Fed is cutting interest rates--but the money isn't reaching capital-starved small businesses because Treasury regulators are cracking down on bank loans. Credit rationing, not interest rates, is the real problem with the economy. . . . This problem didn't start on September 11th. For more than a year U.S. banks have been closed for business lending. Unless the current Bush administration takes steps to restore bank lending to small businesses and heal the asset markets now, the economy will stay weak. They ignore surveys published in the American Banker. On October 31, a survey of 80 lenders of all sizes by Phoenix Management Services found that 42 percent ``would be less likely to lend to small businesses, which they view as more risky because they foresee no improvement in the economy until late 2002 at the earliest.'' The article from November validated what before was characterized as ``less likely to lend to small businesses,'' by reporting lenders had actually ``tightened their standards'' to small firms by more than 40 percent. Still, the administration maintains there's no credit crunch and that provisions in S. 1499 to provide improved access to credit are too expensive and unnecessary. The administration has also raised concerns about the cost of the legislation, which has been unofficially scored by Congressional Budget Office at $860 million. Let me be clear, that's million, not billion. $860 million to help all of our Nation's small businesses. Yet the administration objects to this, when they have sent up requests for billions in tax cuts for a select few large corporations, and when the administration's approach costs almost five times as much to help fewer small businesses. The bill's $860 million cost is too much to invest in the nation's small businesses, according to the administration's position. I regret very much for small businesses and their employees that their needs are being trivialized. I admire Senator Bond and the Chairman of the House Committee on Small Business for showing leadership in their party to help small businesses. I am very glad that we can work in such a strong bipartisan fashion to fight for small businesses. I thank the 62 members of this body who have come together in a bipartisan fashion to support this legislation and our nation's small businesses. Let me note here that the White House said in our meetings that 62 cosponsors ``means nothing--that it happens all the time up here.'' I find that cavalier considering that, according to the Congressional Research Service, only 13 out of 1,839 bills introduced in the 107th Congress have more than 60 cosponsors. The support for this bill is strong and bipartisan. I am very sorry that those Senators supporting S. 1499 have not had the chance to cast a vote in favor of this emergency legislation before they go home for the holidays and visit with the small businesses in their states. Small businesses deserve some good news. As for right now, we can only tell them what I told the administration in our meetings last night: When we come back in January, we intend to file cloture on this bill and take a vote. In closing, let me thank the many groups who have fought so hard on behalf of their members to get this legislation enacted. They have demonstrated all that is great about grassroots action and active involvement in the political and legislative process. In addition to including for the record the list of these groups, I also ask unanimous consent to have printed articles and letters from small business groups regarding the current credit crunch, the need for equitable adjustment provisions for our small business contractors and other provisions of S. 1499 be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I very much appreciate the comments of Senators Lott, Stevens, and Gregg concerning the Police Corps program, which provides scholarships on a competitive basis to students who earn their bachelor's degrees, complete approved Police Corps training, and then serve for four years on patrol with law enforcement agencies in areas of great need. The Police Corps gives States funding to provide residential police training and to provide local and State agencies that hire Police Corps officers $10,000 a year for each of an officer's first 4 years of service. The fiscal year 2002 Senate Commerce, Justice, State and Judiciary Appropriations bill, under the leadership of Chairman Hollings and Ranking Member Gregg, included $30 million for the Police Corps program. However, I was very disappointed that this amount was reduced to $14.435 million in the conference report, which included legislative language that the Police Corps program has sufficient unobligated balances available to allow the program to maintain its activities in fiscal year 2002 at the prior year level. I am very concerned that the Office of Justice Programs is not planning to provide appropriate funding for the Police Corps program in fiscal year 2002. It is my understanding that the Office of Justice Programs' plan for the Police Corps program could limit the ability of local law enforcement agencies to address violent crime by decreasing the number of officers with advanced education and training who serve on community patrol in high-crime areas. This could negatively affect the Police Corps program in my home State of Massachusetts, which is currently updating its training curriculum to provide the rigorous physical and moral police training that will help Police Corps recruits work effectively in high-crime areas within Massachusetts. As our nation remains on high alert due to recent terrorist attacks, the Police Corps program will play a crucial role in training future policemen and policewomen to stop terrorist activities before they hurt innocent Americans. It is my understanding that there are unobligated funds available to provide the Police Corps program with the funding necessary to increase the number of recruits above the modest demonstration level of approximately 25 trainees per state per year and to assist in resolving the current backlog of funding requests for the program. I believe that the Department of Justice should provide such funds as are necessary to maintain the current level of activity in Police Corps operations and to begin to resolve the current backlog of funding requests for the program. I look forward to working with Chairman Hollings, Ranking Member Gregg and others to assure that the Police Corps program is treated fairly by the Office of Justice Programs this year and in future years, and to insure that this important program receives adequate funding in the future.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, allow me to congratulate our distinguished chairman of the Commerce Committee, Senator Hollings, for his outstanding work in putting together S. 1214, The Maritime and Port Security Improvement Act. I also wish to congratulate Senators Graham and McCain for all of their hard work in moving this very important legislation that is crucial to homeland defense. I also wish to recognize Carl Bentzel of the Commerce Committee for his years of hard work in putting this legislation together. I thank Senator Hollings for including several provisions from S. 1589, the Port Threat and Security Act of 2001, in the final version of his bill. If I may, I would like to discuss the provisions from S. 1589 that were included in the final version of S. 1214. Senator Breaux and I recently held oversight hearings before our respective Subcommittees on the Coast Guard and its role in improving maritime security after the terrible attacks of September 11. As Senators Hollings and Breaux well know, even before September 11 our maritime and port security was in sorry shape. However, the attacks on New York and Washington made it clear we need to go farther afield to guard against terrorism and other crimes. We need to improve our base of information to identify bad actors throughout the maritime realm. A provision of the bill would help us identify those nations whose vessels and vessel registration procedures pose potential threats to our national security. It would require the Secretaries of Transportation and State to prepare an annual report for the Congress that would list those nations whose vessels the Coast Guard has found would pose a risk to our ports, or that have presented our government with false, partial, or fraudulent information concerning cargo manifests, crew identity, or registration of the vessel. In addition the report would identify nations that do not exercise adequate control over their vessel registration and ownership procedures, particularly with respect to security issues. We need hard information like this if we are to force ``flag of convenience'' nations from providing cover to criminals and terrorists. This is very important as Osama bin Laden has used flags of convenience to hide his ownership in various international shipping interests. In 1998 one of bin Laden's cargo freighters unloaded supplies in Kenya for the suicide bombers who later destroyed the embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. To that end, the bill requires the Administration to report on actions they have taken, or would recommend, to close these loopholes and improve transparency and registration procedures, either through domestic or international action--including action at the International Maritime Organization. This legislation would also establish a national Sea Marshal program to protect our ports from the potential use of vessels as weapons of terror. Sea Marshals have recently been used in San Francisco and Los Angeles, and is supported strongly by the maritime pilots who, like airline pilots, are on the front lines in bringing vessels into U.S. ports. Sea Marshals would be used in ports that handle materials that are hazardous or flammable in quantities that make them potential targets of attack. The Coast Guard has taken a number of steps including using armed Coast Guard personnel to escort a Liquid Natural Gas, LNG, tankers into Boston since September 11. Prior to September 11 these vessels were escorted by Coast Guard vessels into the port but no armed guards were present on the vessel. I strongly believe that having armed personnel, such as Sea Marshals, on these high interest vessels is very important and will considerably increase security in our nation's ports, including Boston. The ability of terrorists to board a vessel and cause a deliberate release of LNG or gasoline for that matter is very real. Sea Marshals will make it much more difficult for this to happen. The Secretary of Transportation would be responsible for evaluating the potential use of Federal, State, or local government personnel as well as documented United States Merchant Marine personnel to supplement Coast Guard personnel as Sea Marshals. In addition it is my hope that the Secretary will establish training centers around the country for the Sea Marshal program. I further believe that the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy or any of the State maritime academies would make excellent locations for such training centers. Lastly, this legislation would allow the President to prohibit any vessel, U.S. flagged or foreign, from transporting passengers or cargo to and from a foreign port that does not have adequate security measures as determined by the Secretary of Transportation. I would like to remind my colleagues that a similar provision exists in the airline industry and I see no reason why the President should not have the power to suspend vessel traffic to and from ports with inadequate security, just like he can now do with international airports. The stakes are simply too high Mr. President, we cannot allow shipping containers to enter this country unless adequate security exists in foreign ports to prevent weapons of mass destruction from being loaded. In addition we should not allow cruise ships carrying U.S. passengers to visit foreign passenger ports that do not have adequate security. I again wish to congratulate Senator Hollings on this landmark legislation and to thank him for including several provisions from S. 1589. This legislation will ensure that the United States has the tools, the information, and the personnel to guard against waterborne threats to our Nation and our citizens.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Burns, Senator Corzine, and Senator Baucus, I wish to introduce legislation of critical importance to our Nation's workforce and economy. The rapid spread of new telecommunications technologies has generated opportunities for firms across the country to improve upon the traditional work environment. Today, millions of American workers participate in ``telework'' arrangements, otherwise known as telecommuting, which allow them to work outside of their normal work location. Telework arrangements carry several advantages: the ability to spend more time with the children, less time wasted in traffic, enhanced productivity, and the environmental benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions. While teleworking grew substantially during the 1990s, the number of teleworkers has reached a plateau, with little increase in the last year. The social, economic, and environmental gains of teleworking are indisputable. Our legislation combines tax incentives and an employer awareness campaign to stimulate further growth in telework arrangements. The term ``telework'' means to perform normal and regular work functions at locations other than the traditional workplace of the employer, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing the physical commute to and from the workplace. Given the opportunity, workers choose overwhelmingly to participate in telework arrangements. Employees who telework report an enhanced quality of life. 71 percent of teleworkers report being more satisfied with their job than before they were permitted to telework. Working from home allows parents more time with their children and reduces child care expenses. Teleworkers also stay in their communities, providing enhanced security and presence. If teleworking is implemented broadly in a community, the need for construction of additional automobile infrastructure, which is often driven by peak period commuting demand, may be reduced. Even workers who do not telework benefit since traffic congestion is lessened for them as well. There are also economic benefits. Data indicate that teleworking enhances productivity, both because teleworkers report being more productive per unit time, and because the teleworker has available the previously nonproductive commute time, an average of 62 minutes per day spent on an average 44 mile round-trip commute. Because teleworkers are able to mix work and personal needs, the number of occasions when they need to be absent from work altogether diminishes. One study suggests that the productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15 percent. Firms also benefit from eliminating unnecessary office space and reducing associated overhead costs. For example, one large national employer reports that in 2000, their telework program resulted in $100 million in increased productivity, $18 million in reduced turnover, and $25 million in reduced real estate costs. Because of the enhanced quality of life and personal freedom that teleworking fosters, firms are better able to retain valued employees. Telework arrangements are critical to keeping our economy and workforce on the leading edge of technological developments. Teleworking contributes to the residential deployment of broadband technology, which has otherwise stagnated. Teleworkers have a disproportionate need for high-speed Internet access. Encouraging telework is a means of inducing greater demand for broadband technology. Allowing employees to work from home saves energy and reduces carbon dioxide emissions associated with commuting. It also reduces vehicular contributions to local and regional tropospheric pollution both directly and, by reducing congestion in general, indirectly. To the extent telework reduces demands for additional infrastructure, it also leads to less material use in construction and less land-use impact. The Teleworking Advancement Act creates two tax-based incentives to promote the continued spread of employer-sponsored telework arrangements and a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers. The employer telework tax credit would allow employers to claim a credit of up to $500 for each employee who participates in an employer- sponsored telework arrangement during the taxable year. For employees who telework on a partial basis, the credit would be prorated. Employees of small businesses, those with 100 or fewer employees, and disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, would be eligible for a maximum credit of $1,000. An employer-sponsored telework arrangement is defined as an arrangement established by an employer that enables employees of the employer to telework for a minimum of 25 days per year. The arrangement must be supported by a written agreement between the employer and each teleworking employee that describes the terms of the arrangement. The telework equipment tax credit would allow individuals or businesses to claim a credit equal to 10 percent of qualified telework expenses paid, pursuant to an employer-sponsored telework arrangement. Either the employer or the employee, depending on who incurred the expense, would be eligible for the credit. The maximum credit would be $500. For employees of small businesses (those with 100 or fewer employees) and disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the credit would be 20 percent of eligible expenses, with a maximum credit of $1,000. Qualified telework expenses includes expenses paid or incurred for computers, software, modems, telecommunications equipment, and access to Internet or broadband technologies, including applicable taxes and other expenses for the delivery, installation, or maintenance of such equipment. Finally, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to conduct a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage employers to offer telecommuting options to employees. Activities would include producing educational materials, conducting outreach, and acquiring telecommuting technologies and equipment to be used for demonstration purposes. Special efforts would be made to conduct outreach to businesses owned by or employing individuals with disabilities. The Teleworking Advancement Act will induce more employers to offer teleworking opportunities to their employees, creating broad-based benefits for the American workforce and helping ensure that our economy remains at the forefront of 21st century workplace practices. Through a combination of tax incentives and an employer awareness campaign, our legislation will stimulate the spread of flexible, innovative, and productivity-enhancing labor arrangements. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, along with my colleagues Senator Burns, Senator Corzine, and Senator Baucus, I wish to introduce legislation of critical importance to our Nation's workforce and economy. The rapid spread of new telecommunications technologies has generated opportunities for firms across the country to improve upon the traditional work environment. Today, millions of American workers participate in ``telework'' arrangements, otherwise known as telecommuting, which allow them to work outside of their normal work location. Telework arrangements carry several advantages: the ability to spend more time with the children, less time wasted in traffic, enhanced productivity, and the environmental benefits of reduced carbon dioxide emissions. While teleworking grew substantially during the 1990s, the number of teleworkers has reached a plateau, with little increase in the last year. The social, economic, and environmental gains of teleworking are indisputable. Our legislation combines tax incentives and an employer awareness campaign to stimulate further growth in telework arrangements. The term ``telework'' means to perform normal and regular work functions at locations other than the traditional workplace of the employer, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing the physical commute to and from the workplace. Given the opportunity, workers choose overwhelmingly to participate in telework arrangements. Employees who telework report an enhanced quality of life. 71 percent of teleworkers report being more satisfied with their job than before they were permitted to telework. Working from home allows parents more time with their children and reduces child care expenses. Teleworkers also stay in their communities, providing enhanced security and presence. If teleworking is implemented broadly in a community, the need for construction of additional automobile infrastructure, which is often driven by peak period commuting demand, may be reduced. Even workers who do not telework benefit since traffic congestion is lessened for them as well. There are also economic benefits. Data indicate that teleworking enhances productivity, both because teleworkers report being more productive per unit time, and because the teleworker has available the previously nonproductive commute time, an average of 62 minutes per day spent on an average 44 mile round-trip commute. Because teleworkers are able to mix work and personal needs, the number of occasions when they need to be absent from work altogether diminishes. One study suggests that the productivity improvement of home-based teleworkers averages 15 percent. Firms also benefit from eliminating unnecessary office space and reducing associated overhead costs. For example, one large national employer reports that in 2000, their telework program resulted in $100 million in increased productivity, $18 million in reduced turnover, and $25 million in reduced real estate costs. Because of the enhanced quality of life and personal freedom that teleworking fosters, firms are better able to retain valued employees. Telework arrangements are critical to keeping our economy and workforce on the leading edge of technological developments. Teleworking contributes to the residential deployment of broadband technology, which has otherwise stagnated. Teleworkers have a disproportionate need for high-speed Internet access. Encouraging telework is a means of inducing greater demand for broadband technology. Allowing employees to work from home saves energy and reduces carbon dioxide emissions associated with commuting. It also reduces vehicular contributions to local and regional tropospheric pollution both directly and, by reducing congestion in general, indirectly. To the extent telework reduces demands for additional infrastructure, it also leads to less material use in construction and less land-use impact. The Teleworking Advancement Act creates two tax-based incentives to promote the continued spread of employer-sponsored telework arrangements and a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers. The employer telework tax credit would allow employers to claim a credit of up to $500 for each employee who participates in an employer- sponsored telework arrangement during the taxable year. For employees who telework on a partial basis, the credit would be prorated. Employees of small businesses, those with 100 or fewer employees, and disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, would be eligible for a maximum credit of $1,000. An employer-sponsored telework arrangement is defined as an arrangement established by an employer that enables employees of the employer to telework for a minimum of 25 days per year. The arrangement must be supported by a written agreement between the employer and each teleworking employee that describes the terms of the arrangement. The telework equipment tax credit would allow individuals or businesses to claim a credit equal to 10 percent of qualified telework expenses paid, pursuant to an employer-sponsored telework arrangement. Either the employer or the employee, depending on who incurred the expense, would be eligible for the credit. The maximum credit would be $500. For employees of small businesses (those with 100 or fewer employees) and disabled employees, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, the credit would be 20 percent of eligible expenses, with a maximum credit of $1,000. Qualified telework expenses includes expenses paid or incurred for computers, software, modems, telecommunications equipment, and access to Internet or broadband technologies, including applicable taxes and other expenses for the delivery, installation, or maintenance of such equipment. Finally, the legislation authorizes $5 million for the Administrator of the Small Business Administration to conduct a pilot program to raise awareness about telecommuting among small business employers and to encourage employers to offer telecommuting options to employees. Activities would include producing educational materials, conducting outreach, and acquiring telecommuting technologies and equipment to be used for demonstration purposes. Special efforts would be made to conduct outreach to businesses owned by or employing individuals with disabilities. The Teleworking Advancement Act will induce more employers to offer teleworking opportunities to their employees, creating broad-based benefits for the American workforce and helping ensure that our economy remains at the forefront of 21st century workplace practices. Through a combination of tax incentives and an employer awareness campaign, our legislation will stimulate the spread of flexible, innovative, and productivity-enhancing labor arrangements. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the legislation, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of Senator McCain's amendment. This amendment would repeal a provision in the recently enacted Agriculture Appropriations bill that prohibits for the current fiscal year, the FDA from using any funds to process imports of fish or fish products labeled as ``catfish'' unless the fish have a certain scientific family name that is only found in North America. The House- passed version of the Farm bill contains a similar provision that would make the ban on imports permanent. The amendment we are offering seeks to reverse this position as well. A number of scientific classification organizations have identified over 30 distinct families of catfish world-wide and over 2,500 different species within these families. Quite frankly, the classification of species is a subject that I think is best left with the scientific community and the experts at the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Food and Drug Administration. I understand the concerns of the American catfish industry, however these kinds of trade wars only lead to our trading partners enacting similar protectionist measures against U.S. food producers. For example, the European Union has passed a provision that prohibits the use of the word sardine for anything other than the European species of sardine. The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative was arguing to the World Trade Organization that the EU's new import policy restricting the labeling of sardines was unfair. After all, North American herring are a part of the sardine family, just like Vietnamese basa is part of the catfish family. Once the Agriculture Conference Report became law however, with its one year ban on imported catfish, everything stopped. American fishermen and processors in the Northeast have the Peruvian and Canadian governments to thank for stepping in to file a complaint with the WTO; otherwise American fishermen and processors have little hope of ever entering into the EU export market. Back in 1993 the French government attempted a similar provision for scallops. Only European caught scallops could be sold as ``Noix de Coquille Saint-Jacques'', which reduced the market value of imported scallops by 25 percent. The U.S. and a number of other nations protested to the WTO and overturned the decision. The U.S.-Vietnam bilateral trade agreement, which came into force this week, requires that each country give ``national treatment'' to the products of the other country when those products share a likeness with domestic products. By denying American importers the right to bring in Vietnamese catfish under the name ``catfish'', the provision enacted in the Agricultural Appropriations Conference report, and the language in the House-passed farm bill, violate the trade agreement by denying the same treatment to Vietnamese catfish as we give to American raised catfish. The U.S.-Vietnam trade agreement is a vehicle for opening the Vietnamese economy to American goods and services. It is the precursor to a WTO agreement. For the United States to violate the letter and the spirit of that agreement by restricting the importation of Vietnamese catfish will undermine the process of implementation of that agreement before it has even begun. I wish to remind my colleagues that Brazil, Thailand, and Guyana are all members of the WTO and all three countries also export catfish to the U.S. This provision would deny them access to our markets as well, and I would not be surprised if they successfully protest this matter to the WTO should we choose not to repeal this provision. I understand the desire of my colleagues in the Senate and the House to try to help their domestic catfish farmers who have hit on hard times. I believe one of the ways to do this is to make it clear to the American consumer where the fish that they are purchasing comes from. Existing FDA and Customers regulations require country of origin labeling on catfish that is imported by U.S. companies. In fact, one of those importers in my home State of Massachusetts has shown me the label on his catfish. It leaves no doubt about the origin of the fish. However, I believe we should go a step further to include country of origin labeling for fish products at the consumer level as well. Consumers have a right to know where their food comes from. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Senator Voinovich's legislation, S. 1271, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001, as well as my amendment to improve the legislation for the benefit of America's small businesses. While legislation such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act have made great strides in helping to ease the regulatory burden on our small businesses, more work remains to be done. In the report prepared by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy on the recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business in 1995, the Office of Advocacy stated that, ``Federal, State and local governments impose numerous requirements on the operation of businesses. The burdens associated with these requirements are often exacerbated by substantial paperwork and record-keeping requirements. In addition to the cost and administrative burdens, small and growing businesses have difficulty simply keeping abreast of the various regulatory and paperwork requirements.'' Six years later, this statement is still true. While I support the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, I think it is important to point out that I objected to an original request to pass this legislation by unanimous consent because the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which I Chair, has jurisdiction over some of the issues included in this legislation. Additionally, the expertise of the Committee on issues of importance to small businesses can only serve to enhance any legislation designed to help our nation's small businesses. That being said, Senator Voinovich and I have addressed my questions about the legislation and agreed to an amendment. I believe the bill is better because of our work. The legislation originally called for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, OMB, to appoint members to the ``Task Force'' created in the legislation from the various agencies listed in the bill. Although I had no objection to the Task Force being led by the OMB Director, I did have reservations about the OMB Director selecting the participants, a function that should be vested with each agency head. The amendment makes this change. Additionally, my amendment has a provision stating that in any report issued by the Task Force, minority views must be included. This provision has been added as a result of my consultations with SBA's Office of Advocacy, who were concerned that reports issued on small business issues may not reflect the views of small business advocates. By allowing minority opinions, any report issued by the Task Force will at the very least contain concerns raised by the small business community. My amendment also adds the National Ombudsman to the list of recipients receiving bi-annual reporting on the number of enforcement actions taken by agencies. The National Ombudsman, located at the SBA, serves as a confidential resource to field complaints and comments from small businesses about the regulatory process and actions taken by regulatory agencies. Additionally, the National Ombudsman rates Federal regulatory agencies on their treatment of small businesses and issues a report card. Therefore, I felt it appropriate that agency information regarding regulatory enforcement be shared with the National Ombudsman. Finally, my amendment makes a technical change in the legislation to reflect the name change of the Senate Committee on Small Business to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which occurred on June 29 of this year. I would just like to state that I believe the changes my amendment makes will provide additional support for our small businesses suffering from paperwork burdens.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I begin by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his extraordinary leadership in this effort. I thank Senator Gregg also for his cooperation and leadership. Senator Kennedy, as we all know, has been fighting for and pushing for education reform for a long time. He has been our leading voice in the Senate on the subject of education. His tenacity in pursuing this in moments that even appeared to be bleak--and I thank his staff also for that--have helped to bring us to this moment. It gives me great pleasure to come to the Senate floor today to talk about, and to lend my support to, the conference report for H.R. 1, the No Child Left Behind Act. This is groundbreaking legislation that enhances the Federal Government's commitment to our Nation's public education system, dramatically reconfigures the federal role in public education, and embraces many of the principles and programs that I believe are critical to improving the public education system. This bill represents a true coming together of Republicans and Democrats, and both sides made important compromises in order to arrive at this point. I have come to the floor many times over the past few years to express my belief that we were past due to break the partisan gridlock over education reform, and to come together around the programs, policies, and initiatives that members of both parties could agree are critical to improving public education. For years we spun our wheels as we tried to reform the public education system, Republicans calling for a diminished Federal role, Democrats calling for more programs and greater funding levels. I was of the opinion that there was significant room for consensus on public education reform, and last year I worked with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce legislation that would help break the stalemate and move beyond the tired, partisan debates of the past. Our education proposal became the foundation of the bill before us today. I am extraordinarily pleased that Republicans and Democrats came together to adopt a fresh, new approach to improving public education, one that focuses on increasing student achievement and that provides increased resources and flexibility in exchange for increased accountability. The No Child Left Behind Act provides public schools with more funding and flexibility in return for demanding accountability for results. I am convinced that a strong accountability system is the linchpin of this reform. For the first time, the Federal Government will put into place an accountability system that will hold States, schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning of their children and closing the achievement gap between rich and poor and between minorities and non-minorities. The accountability provisions in this bill sharply redefine the definition of adequate yearly progress to ensure that schools and districts are making demonstrable gains in closing the achievement gap. This legislation requires States, districts, and schools to set annual goals for raising student achievement so that all students achieve proficiency in 12 years. The bill applies performance standards and consequences not only to the title I program but to all major programs. And in addition to requiring tough corrective actions for chronically failing schools, it gives students in failing schools the right to either transfer to a better public school or obtain supplemental services. This bill puts in place a new accountability system, which is a vital first step to improving student achievement. But implementing and enforcing the accountability system are equally as important as creating one. The Federal Government must follow through on its commitment to hold schools accountable for student achievement or the legislation that we are passing today will do little to change the status quo. I urge the administration to vigorously implement and enforce the provisions of this new law. Another key component of this bill is the expansion of public school choice and charter schools. I strongly support increasing the educational options available to parents within the public school framework, and in fact, expanding public school choice has been one of my education reform priorities. I believe that choice and competition within the public school system are vital ingredients to increasing accountability and improving our schools. I am pleased that the No Child Left Behind Act strengthens the Federal charter school program and authorizes the inter-and intra-district choice initiative. The legislation also requires states and local districts to issue detailed report cards with data on school performance so that parents can be better informed about the quality of their child's schools and can make educated decisions about which school their child should attend. This bill does an excellent job of targeting federal education funds to public schools with large numbers of poor children. The title I program was originally designed to compensate for spending gaps left by state and local education funding in order to help level the playing field for children in low-income school districts. However, despite the goal of sending funds to those very low-income schools, over the years, money has been directed to communities with extremely low poverty rates and in some instances does not reach the country's poorest schools at all. This legislation funnels new title I funding through the targeted grant formula, which will ensure that the neediest communities receive additional funding. I am extremely pleased that the conference report includes my amendments to improve school leadership and increase alternative education opportunities, which were part of the education reform bill that Senator Gordon Smith and I introduced during the 106th Congress. Focusing on school leadership is critical to ensuring that the ambitions reforms contain din this legislation are successfully implemented in the schools. Many of today's principals are reaching the age at which they could choose to retire, and evidence has pointed to a decline in the number of candidates for each opening. If we don't stem the flow of retirees and buoy up the numbers of aspiring principals, we will face a crucial school leadership crisis--one that could debilitate meaningful education reform. A good principal can create a climate that fosters excellence in teaching and learning, while an ineffective one can quickly thwart the progress of the most dedicated reformers. I can tell you unequivocally that I have never been in a blue-ribbon school that doesn't have a blue-ribbon principal. And I'm sure that my colleagues have noticed this, too when they have visited schools in their respective States. Without a good leader as principal, it is difficult to instigate or sustain any meaningful chance and schools cannot be transformed, restructured, or reconstituted without leadership. Our amendment addressed this critical problem in school leadership by giving States greater flexibility in the use of their title II dollars so that funding can be used to retain high-quality principles and to improve principal quality. By expanding the list of authorized uses of funds, this amendment will allow States and school districts to use Federal dollars to ensure that principals have the instructional skills to help teachers teach, implement alternative routes for principal certification, or mentor new principals, and to provide principals with high-quality professional development. The conference agreement also includes our amendment on alternative education opportunities. The presence of chronically disruptive students in schools interferes with the learning opportunities for other students. One way to ensure safe schools and manageable classrooms has been to require the removal of disruptive and dangerous students. While expulsion and suspensions may make schools safer and more manageable, students' problems do not go away when they are removed from the classroom--the problems just go somewhere else. The consensus among educators and others concerned with at-risk youth is that it is vital for expelled students to receive educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior while they are away from school. Without such services, students generally return to school no better disciplined and no better able to manage their anger or peaceably resolve disputes. Our amendment enable States and school districts to develop, establish, or improve alternative educational opportunities for violent or drug abusing students under the Safe and Drug Free Schools program. This bill is a compromise, and thus, everyone can point to things that they wish were done differently. I echo the comments made by my colleagues, in particular Senator Jeffords, who have decried the lost opportunity to include in this bill guaranteed full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. This bill fails to deliver on the Federal Governments commitment to fully fund special education, and it does this just as it places substantial new requirements on schools. Perhaps most disconcerting, all of this comes at a time when state budgets are in deficit. According to the National Governors' Association, states are facing a $35 billion shortfall due to the national recession, and states have already begun paring back their education budgets. The No Child Left Behind Act contains significant, meaningful reforms, but these reforms cannot succeed without sufficient resources. We expect about a 20 percent increase in education funding this year, which is a tremendous step forward. But we need to continue to make resources a priority--we need to fully fund IDEA--we must not thrust new requirements on schools without providing them with sufficient resources to implement reforms. I also have concerns about the mandatory testing provisions contained in the bill. This legislation requires the testing of all students in math and reading in grades 3-8. I am not opposed to testing, in fact, I think that tests are important so that we know year to year how well students are achieving. It is critically important to be able to identify where gaps exists so that efforts can be focused on closing them. When used correctly, good tests provide information that helps teachers understand the academic strengths and weaknesses of students and tailor instruction to respond to the needs of students with targeted teaching and appropriate materials. My concern is that once we know where the gaps exist, once we know how a child needs to be helped, we will not provide the resources necessary to ensure that all students are able to reach proficiency. It is my sincere hope that Congress and the States will continue to recognize that reform and resources go hand-in-hand. Resources without accountability is a waste of money, and accountability without resources is a waste of time. The two together are key to successful reform. I would like to congratulate the conferees for their tremendous work on this legislation. I am excited and encouraged by the reforms in this bill. I believe that they will have a tremendous impact on raising student achievement by increasing accountability, improving teacher and principal quality, expanding flexibility, and increasing public school choice. This groundbreaking legislation has enormous potential. I hope that the Congress will live up to its commitment to provide states and schools with the resources they need to make these reforms work. We are now about to adopt a fresh new approach to improving public education in a way that focuses on improving student achievement and providing increased resources simultaneously. Though I will add to the voice of my colleagues in the Senate, the resources are not what they need to be to guarantee success. Last year, I joined with 10 of my Democratic colleagues to introduce legislation that we hoped would break the stalemate, that would change the dialog. I would like to believe that thanks to the efforts of the Senator from Indiana and the Senator from Connecticut and others, we have contributed in a way that has helped to shift that dialog. We are now providing a strong accountability system which is the linchpin of reform, together with a reconfiguration of the role that the Federal Government plays in providing some resources and flexibility over the use of funds to the States in exchange for that strong accountability system. For the first time, the Federal Government is putting into place accountability that will hold States, schools, and districts accountable for steadily improving the learning of their children and closing the achievement gap between the rich and the poor, between minorities and nonminorities. I am also pleased that the law includes a mechanism to target additional funding to schools with high concentrations of low-income students. Historically, title I has always been our focus of directing Federal funds to schools with large proportions of poor students, but Congress has not always met that goal. It is our hope that this increased targeting, for which I again congratulate Senator Kennedy, is going to be an important part of our achieving that. Another key component is the expansion of school choice in public schools together with the charter schools. I strongly support increasing educational options available to parents within the public school system framework. In fact, expanding public school choice has been one of my top education priorities. I am pleased that the No Child Left Behind Act strengthens that Federal charter program and authorizes the inter- and intradistrict school choice initiative. I am also pleased that it includes several amendments that I have proposed, one specifically to improve principals, to improve the strength of leadership. We can have all the rules we want and all the framework we want, but if you don't have adequate leadership in the schools, it is often hard to achieve. We have a method in here to help to increase that. We also include an amendment that I have introduced to enable States and school districts to help to develop, establish, and improve alternative educational opportunities for violent or drug offending students under the Safe and Drug Free Schools Program. That is one way to guarantee that we will ensure safe classrooms, safe schools, manageable classrooms by removing disruptive students and dangerous students and making sure that those who are expelled receive educational counseling or other services to help modify their behavior. This bill, as all legislation, is a compromise. Not everything meets everybody's eye. I do believe we have to push on to achieve the opportunity of guaranteeing full funding for individuals with disabilities education, and we have to guarantee the resources for this act. I congratulate Senator Kennedy and all those who have been part of this effort to bring this bill to the floor. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal fire fighters are also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States Park Service. From first-response emergency care services on military installations around the world to front-line defense against raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women to protect our national interests. Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for Federal fire fighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government has to offer. Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to create a presumptive disability for fire fighters who become disabled by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated in this important legislation would be considered job related for purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement, entitling those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that they deserve. Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and other hazardous substances with which Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal fire fighters' counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local levels. The effort behind the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 marks a significant advancement for fire fighter health and safety. Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the risks that fire fighters and emergency response personnel face everyday. Federal fire fighters deserve our highest commendation and it is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees. The job of fire fighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose new threats to fire fighter health and safety. The Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 will help protect the lives of our fire fighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health and safety. I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 on behalf of our Nation's Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation on behalf of thousands of Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel worldwide who, at great risk to their own personal health and safety, protect America's defense, our veterans, Federal wildlands, and national treasures. Although the majority of these important Federal employees work for the Department of Defense, Federal fire fighters are also employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the United States Park Service. From first-response emergency care services on military installations around the world to front-line defense against raging forest fires here at home, we call on these brave men and women to protect our national interests. Yet under Federal law, compensation and retirement benefits are not provided to Federal employees who suffer from occupational illnesses unless they can specify the conditions of employment which caused their disease. This onerous requirement makes it nearly impossible for Federal fire fighters, who suffer from occupational diseases, to receive fair and just compensation or retirement benefits. The bureaucratic nightmare they must endure is burdensome, unnecessary, and in many cases, overwhelming. It is ironic and unjust that the very people we call on to protect our Federal interests are not afforded the very best health care and retirement benefits our Federal Government has to offer. Today, I introduced legislation, the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001, which amends the Federal Employees Compensation Act to create a presumptive disability for fire fighters who become disabled by heart and lung disease, cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma, and infectious diseases like tuberculosis and hepatitis. Disabilities related to the cancers, heart, lung, and infectious diseases enumerated in this important legislation would be considered job related for purposes of workers compensation and disability retirement, entitling those affected to the health care coverage and retirement benefits that they deserve. Too frequently, the poisonous gases, toxic byproducts, asbestos, and other hazardous substances with which Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel come in contact, rob them of their health livelihood, and professional careers. The Federal Government should not rob them of necessary benefits. Thirty-eight States have already enacted a similar disability presumption law for Federal fire fighters' counterparts working in similar capacities on the State and local levels. The effort behind the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 marks a significant advancement for fire fighter health and safety. Since September 11, there has been an enhanced appreciation for the risks that fire fighters and emergency response personnel face everyday. Federal fire fighters deserve our highest commendation and it is time to do the right thing for these important Federal employees. The job of fire fighting continues to be complex and dangerous. The nationwide increase in the use of hazardous materials, the recent rise in both natural and manmade disasters, and the threat of terrorism pose new threats to fire fighter health and safety. The Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 will help protect the lives of our fire fighters and it will provide them with a vehicle to secure their health and safety. I urge my colleagues to embrace this bipartisan effort and support the Federal Fire Fighters Fairness Act of 2001 on behalf of our Nation's Federal fire fighters and emergency response personnel.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. I was at this time going to ask unanimous consent to move to the small business bill. I am not going to do that at this point in time, having had a conversation with the majority leader, a conversation with Senator Bond and other Senators. But I say to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we have been for several months trying to get emergency assistance through the normal lending process of the Small Business Administration to the small businesses that have not been helped. We have helped airlines. We have been talking about help for the insurance companies. We have a lot of small businesses. We always hear the speeches on the floor of the Senate extolling the virtues of the people who really make the businesses of our country grow; the place where all of the growth of the Nation exists--not in the Fortune 500 companies but in the small businesses. Many of those businesses simply need a small tide-over with access to credit that they have been denied because of the downturn in the economy. If you talk about stimulus, helping small businesses at this point in time is one of the most important ways we can invigorate our economy. I hope and plead with my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I have yet to have the administration come to us and say, here is the way we can improve your bill, or here is a change we really would like besides gutting the bill altogether, or simply not spending any money on small business. In fact, by creating lending through the program that 63 of our colleagues have joined as cosponsors, we would, in fact, be making loan guarantees. This is not direct lending. These are loan guarantees that would be made at a less expensive rate than the disaster assistance loans currently being made. This is a way to get much more leverage for the dollars we invest. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle--and I see the minority assistant leader is here. I hope we can try to break through on this small business bill this afternoon and find a way to reach some kind of compromise so those 63 colleagues could have their interests met. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I speak today in support of Senator Voinovich's legislation, the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2001, as well as my amendment to improve the legislation for the benefit on America's small businesses. While legislation such as the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act have made great strides in helping to ease the regulatory burden on our small businesses, more work remains to be done. In the report prepared by the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy on the recommendations of the White House Conference on Small Business in 1995, the Office of Advocacy stated that. Federal, state and local governments impose numerous requirements on the operation of businesses. The burdens associated with these requirements are often exacerbated by substantial paperwork and record-keeping requirements. In addition to the cost and administrative burdens, small and growing businesses have difficulty simply keeping abreast of the various regulatory and paperwork requirements. Six years later, this statement is still true. While I support the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act, I think it is important to point out that I objected to an original request to pass this legislation by unanimous consent because the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which I chair, has jurisdiction over some of the issues included in this legislation. Additionally, the expertise of the Committee on issues of importance to small businesses can only serve to enhance any legislation designed to help our Nation's small businesses. That being said, Senator Voinovich and I have addressed my questions about the legislation and agreed to an amendment. I believe the bill is better because of our work. The legislation originally called for the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to appoint members to the ``Task Force'' created in the legislation from the various agencies listed in the bill. Although I had no objection to the Task Force being led by the OMB Director, I did have reservations about the OMB Director selecting the participants, a function that should be vested with each agency head. The amendment makes this change. Additionally, my amendment has a provision stating that in any report issued by the Task Force, minority views must be included. This provision has been added as a result of my consultations with SBA's Office of Advocacy, who were concerned that reports issued on small business issues may not reflect the views of small business advocates. By allowing minority opinions, any report issued by the Task Force will at the very least contain concerns raised by the small business community. My amendment also adds the National Ombudsman to the list of recipients bi-annual reporting on the number of enforcement actions taken by agencies. The National Ombudsman, located at the SBA, serves as a confidential resource to field complaints and comments from small businesses about the regulatory process and actions taken by regulatory agencies. Additionally, the National Ombudsman rates Federal regulatory agencies on their treatment of small businesses and issues a report card. Therefore, I felt it appropriate that agency information regarding regulatory enforcement be shared with the National Ombudsman. Finally, my amendment makes a technical change in the legislation to reflect the name change of the Senate Committee on Small Business to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, which occurred on June 29th of this year. I believe the changes my amendment makes will provide additional support for our small businesses suffering from paperwork burdens, and I ask my colleagues to support the amendment and the underlying legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to take just a few moments today to place President Bush's announcement that he is withdrawing the United States from the 1972 ABM Treaty into a broader context, to try and redefine a debate about our security which too often has been argued at the margins. The undergirding objective behind any American foreign policy should be to make Americans safer, to make our position in the world more secure, not less. That is the only objective measurement of foreign policy, and it is by that measurement that I want to offer any construction concerns about today's announcement. First, let me be clear: I support the development of an effective defense against ballistic missiles that it deployed with maximum transparency and consultation with U.S. allies and with other major powers, including Russia and China. I've voted as has the Senate, to support an approach which delivers that kind of security measure. In the end, it boils down to common sense: If there is a real potential of a rogue nation firing a few missiles at any city in the U.S., responsible leadership requires that we make our best, most thoughtful efforts to defend against that threat. The same is true of accidental launch. If it ever happened, no leader could ever explain not having chosen to defend against the disaster when doing so made sense. The broader question we must ask today is what constitutes not just effective defense against the ballistic missile threat, but whether in its entirety we are pursuing a national security strategy which makes us as safe as we can be against the whole range of threats we face as a nation, and what should have been clear before September 11 and what is evident with frightening clarity today is that there are urgent and immediate vulnerabilities to our security which can and must be addressed, practically, pragmatically, today. The President's announcement today reflects, I fear, misplaced priorities--an unyielding obsession almost with a threat which most measurements would suggest is of lesser likelihood, and an almost cavalier willingness to nickel and dime security priorities of the first order. I remain disappointed that the Bush Administration continues to focus so much on its attention on the issue of missile defense and a missile defense plan which will be enormously expensive while at the same time they cite expense as a reason why they will not today make the investment towards meeting our tremendous homeland security challenges. Missile defense is important, but it is a response of last resort, when diplomacy and deterrence have failed. No missile defense system can be 100 percent effective, and so we would be remiss to discard entirely the logic of deterrence that has kept us safe for 40 years. Even in periods of intense animosity and tension, under the most unpredictable and isolated of regimes, political and military deterrence have a powerful, determining effect on a nation's decision to use force. We saw it at work in the Gulf War, when Saddam Hussein was deterred from using his weapons of mass destruction by the sure promise of a devastating response from the United States. For 30 years, the ABM Treaty has helped to anchor nuclear deterrence, and I believe that people of the world have been safer for it. Yes, I would have preferred that the Bush administration continue to work with Russia to find a way to amend, rather than end, the ABM Treaty. It appears that Russia was willing to allow the Bush administration great leeway in pursing its robust testing plan for missile defense, but the President was unwilling to accept any restrictions on his plans. Given their past statements, it comes as no surprise that the Administration does not seem to have offered much to Russia by way of a compromise or an attempt to amend and preserve the Treaty. What the Administration has done, and it is their prerogative to do so, is gamble successfully on the fact that the Russian leadership would wisely determine not to allow this issue to derail the improvements we have seen in the last 3 months in the U.S.-Russian relationship. President Putin has called this decision on the ABM Treaty a mistake and expressed his regret that President Bush intends to go forward with this, but Putin and others in his administration have pledged that they will continue to work with us on reducing strategic nuclear arsenals and building a new Russian relationship with NATO. The response from Russia could have been much different, much more dangerous and destabilizing, and I believe it would have been, before the events of September 11 changed Russia's perception of the threats it faces and the importance of cooperating with the United States. But I am gratified that the Russians remain partners in a global effort to increase security. The situation with China is more murky. While the administration has briefed the Chinese leadership on its missile defense plans, I don't believe enough time or diplomatic effort has been invested in convincing Beijing that this system is not directed at eroding China's small nuclear deterrent. The Administration must do more to reach a common understanding with China that there is a real threat from isolated regimes bent on terrorism and accidental or unauthorized launches. If we fail to take this task seriously, we will jeopardize stability in the Pacific. But, in my judgment, what is more striking about the President's announcement today is the homeland security measures left unaddressed, and unfunded, in the Administration's security wish list. In his statements about missile defense over the last several months, President Bush has said over and over that this is only one part of a comprehensive national security strategy. I could not agree more, but I am deeply concerned that the President's words are not matched by the deeds of his administration. Especially in the world after September 11, a comprehensive national security strategy must emphasize the things we need to do to keep the American people safe from terrorism. But just last week, the President defeated attempts by Democrats in the Senate to provide additional funding for homeland security as part of the Defense Department appropriations bills. I am deeply concerned that, at a time when the Administration tells us that financial resources for defense are highly limited, we must be more prudent about our spending priorities, we need a debate about choices for our national security agenda. Let's be clear about what every national security expert told us before September 11 and has amplified since. We need to fund our efforts to deliver airline and rail security, border security, the ability of our fire fighters, police and emergency workers to respond to terrorist attacks, and the ability of our health care system to respond to the threat we face from bio-terrorism. And we are at war. We need to ensure that our fighting men and women have the tools and support they need to prosecute this war on terrorism successfully. Finding an effective defense against missile attacks is important, but these challenges are immediate, critical, and regrettably they are being left unmet today. Pushing forth first and foremost with national missile defense does nothing to address what the Pentagon, even before September 11, considered a much more likely and immediate threat to the American homeland from terrorists and non-state actors, who might attack us with weapons of mass destruction. As we are learning more about Osama bin Ladin's attempts to possibly acquire nuclear weapons and develop chemical or biological weapons, it is crucial that we stay focused on meeting the WMD threat. Our first defense against that threat is a robust international effort on non-proliferation. but the President's FY 2002 budget actually cut U.S. funding for counter-proliferation programs to deal with the huge weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union. Our former colleague, Senator Howard Baker, was part of a study of these counter- proliferation programs released earlier this year. That study concluded that the threat of proliferation from the weapons stockpiles of the former Soviet Union is very grave, and efforts to secure and destroy those weapons demand our immediate, robust support. The study recommended an increase of $30 million in funding for these programs, but supporters of these programs on both sides of the aisle have struggled mightily just to keep the funding from being slashed. Consider also the homeland security needs so clearly being given short shrift in an agenda dominated by national missile defense. Our security needs are enormous, for certainly the last months have at least demonstrated where some of the vulnerabilities lie. We must shore up not just the safety of our nuclear plants around the country, but plants and nuclear weapons facilities around the globe. From making nuclear facilities less vulnerable from the air, to investing in the trained personnel to ensure that cargo ships in American ports are not carrying dangerous or stolen nuclear materials meaningful steps can be taken to protect Americans against a threat which was real before September 11 and looms larger today. The Administration can't speak about preparing to deal with bioterrorism, and in the next breath ignore that medicine must be stockpiled, that nurses and medical professionals must be trained, and that massive investments in vaccines for diseases long believed to have been eradicated must be made at a rapid pace. We can't honor firefighters, police and rescue workers who died in the World Trade Center if we aren't willing to invest in the technology and innovation that make these jobs safer. There is little solace for postal workers killed by Anthrax if the government is not committed to putting in place innovative ways to detect and combat future biological and chemical threats. Making our Nation's rail system safe will come with a high price tag, but it's trivial compared to the devastation that could be wrought by a single terrorist attack on passenger rail. More than 300,000 people pass through the century-old rail tunnels under New York City each day, tunnels lacking both ventilation and sufficient emergency exits. It is time to shore up the security of our transportation infrastructure before they become targets, not when it is too late. These are security needs of a nation at war and a nation bent on returning to normalcy in the months and years ahead, and they must be addressed. I would say to you today, it's time we break out of a debate over whether we're going to have a missile defense system or rely entirely on deterrence, a fruitless debate, ideological shadow-boxing and end the days of arguing at the margins. We need a serious, thoughtful debate on the comprehensive steps required, in every issue of national security, to make our Nation as safe as it can be, and until we do that we are not offering the kind of leadership our citizens and our country demands of us. And that is a debate of the first order of urgency, a debate too important to delay.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is my extraordinary privilege to share a few words with you today about Sgt. Dan Petithory. I am touched that his family asked me to do so, touched as a veteran who shares with Dan the bond of service in war, touched as a public official who has the privilege of expressing gratitude on behalf of everyone in our State and country whose lives are better for Dan's service, and touched as a citizen and father whose gratitude for Dan's contribution and sacrifice can never be adequately described. No one in all of time has ever been able to soften the blow of a young person dying. I know all too well, as does Senator Kennedy, how the suddenness of death can rob us of those we love and change life forever for those left to live it. But somehow through the tears, God helps us find our way. In the natural order of things, parents are not supposed to bury their children. The pain of doing so is unfathomable and today America's heart and the hearts of all decent, civilized people ache uncontrollably for Louis and Barbara, for Michael and Nicole, and for all the members of their family. But we are comforted above all by knowing this was not a loss in vain. This was not a waste. This was not a death that cannot be explained, difficult as the circumstances were. Sgt. Daniel Petithory died for all of us. He died believing in his country, his values, his brothers in his unit. He died in the extraordinary act of making it possible for others to live by the values he loved so deeply, so much more even than he loved his own life. And we will never forget: Dan was a warrior on our behalf. Twice he went to war so we can live our lives in security and freedom. When the terrorists brought the frontlines here to America, Sergeant Petithory took the battle back to them in Afghanistan, just as he had taken it to Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War a decade ago. That time, he came home safely to America, to a New England community built on the values for which he'd fought so courageously, home to Cheshire and the love of his family which all the days of his youth had flown the American flag from their front porch. Now he is returned to us, resting under that flag to which he has added an indelible new strand of duty and honor. He gave his life to defend the values and security of our Nation and in doing so he joined the special legion of patriots who define the United States of America. For his ultimate sacrifice in the performance of duty, Sgt. Petithory is to be awarded the Silver Star and the Purple Heart, badges of distinction from a grateful Nation. Following his courageous example, the duty is now left to us to spare no sacrifice to finish the mission for which Dan earned our eternal respect, gratitude, and awe. I didn't know Dan personally. Nor did many who mourn him in Massachusetts and across the country. But now we know him as the neighbor next door; we know him as the kid who always wanted to be a soldier since he was 4 years old playing with G.I. Joes in his family's backyard; the ``all American,'' athletic and funny, who became what he always wanted to be, the Army's best and America's best too. We know him as the boy at school who Alison Kachel remembers exalting in games of hide and seek, as she said, ``hiding like there was no tomorrow.'' While other kids hid behind corners and in the bottom of bushes, Dan hid in the tree tops, on the school roof, atop neighborhood homes. He was never discovered until the game was over, out of sight until his friends, exasperated, would look up and see him peering out behind a chimney, and declare him the winner, if they could find him even then. Alison, today a police officer serving her hometown, told me simply: ``we've lost one of our elite.'' And indeed we should take a moment to honor what it really meant for Dan to have been a member of the Special Forces. His unit commander, Captain Jason Amerine, who was wounded at the same time, said we should remember not how Dan and his brothers in arms died, but `what they did beforehand.' What an extraordinary story of courage, initiative, and resolve: a member of an 11 man team, the elite of the American fighting forces, dropped into a valley deep inside enemy territory in Central Afghanistan, a part of the world they said looked like the ``back side of the moon.'' In the darkness in those initial tense moments they came face to face with Hamid Karzai, then the leader of a committed band of freedom fighters taking on the Taliban, and thanks to Dan and his fellow soldiers now about to become the leader of a free Afghanistan. Together they became one fighting force with a common mission. For 6 weeks the men in this small band of brothers depended on each other for life and death, calling in airstrikes, repelling Taliban counterattacks, organizing the opposition, carrying on their shoulders the hopes of all who were outraged by the acts of September 11. And in that far off place where danger was everywhere, Dan excelled on behalf of his Nation, proving, as his fellow soldiers said of him, that he was among the best America had to offer. On several occasions Dan directed the air attacks that turned the tide of battles. Captain Amerine said of him: ``It's an art. And the guy I had was the best I've ever seen.'' So today, we are all privileged to know Dan and we love him for his idealistic, wholehearted commitment to a cause bigger than any of us, for his enduring love of country and his enormous sacrifice for freedom. He has given a great gift to us all, the gift of a life worth emulating, the gift of his life for our's. While the Petithorys' hearts will forever be heavier with the loss of their beloved son and brother, we pray that their pain is lightened to some measure by the knowledge that the whole country shares it, and that our whole country reaches out with an embrace of gratitude. We pray that their burden will also be lifted in part by the knowledge that the justice for which Dan sacrificed so much, is being delivered in Afghanistan, delivered for the brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, the children, of every American lost in New York, Pennsylvania, and the Pentagon. Louis and Barbara, that justice will be delivered for one more man, your son, Sergeant Daniel Petithory. President Harry Truman, himself a veteran tested by war, committed to peace, 50 years ago honored the Greatest Generation and said of America: ``We are not a warlike Nation. We do not go to war for gain or for territory; we go to war for principles, and we produce young men like these.'' Once again, our peaceful Nation is at war. We did not seek this war, but we will win it for a principle that is timeless and values which shall forever define the greatness of yet another generation of citizen soldiers. And even in our grief, we can say with pride, and conviction, this is America, the Nation we love because it produces and keeps faith with men like Dan Petithory. God bless you Dan, and God Bless the United States of America.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to submit for the Record a letter to our majority leader, Senator Daschle, regarding my request to hold all non-judicial nominations that come before the Senate until all holds are lifted on S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. I want to make sure that my colleagues are aware of what I am doing and why. As I just mentioned, my actions have everything to do with emergency assistance for small businesses. They are literally dying in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11. They badly need access to affordable financing and management counseling until business returns to normal, and the administration's approach is not adequately helping those who need it. Senator Bond and I introduced S. 1499 on October 4 to address the needs of small businesses trying to hold on in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks. For almost 2 months, emergency legislation with 63 sponsors has been blocked from being considered because the administration and two Republican Senators have chosen to put holds on legislation rather than debate the bill and cast a vote. Today there is an article in the Miami Herald that says, ``. . .[there aren't] any objections to having the Kerry-Bond bill come to the floor for a debate as long as the Administration's and the Small Business Administration's concerns were aired.'' That implies that we haven't given them a chance to express their concerns and to work with us to pass this bill, when we have. We went to great efforts to work with SBA, Senator Kyl and his staff, and the administration. This has gone on long enough. I have not placed a hold on non-judicial nominees in haste. I do it because I have no alternative. Small businesses need assistance, the administration's approach isn't adequate to meet the needs of those businesses, and Senator Bond and I have a sensible approach to reach them. I ask my colleagues to lift their holds on the bill, let us debate the bill, and let us vote. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a copy of my letter to Senator Daschle be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to the Senator from Arizona, all of the analysts, all of the small business entities, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States and others, do not find what the administration is doing adequate. And the President did not, as you say, announce almost immediately after September 11 emergency programs for small business loans. The administration waited more than 1 month to act, and they did so after OMB put a hold on S. 1499. The consensus of the community is that the administration's response is simply not adequate. They didn't sit down and talk with the same groups we did in putting this bill together. They didn't reach out to the Senators from New York to find out what the needs of the city were in doing this the way we did. We have done that, and we have even incorporated provisions into the bill to address concerns by the administration. The Senate deserves to have an appropriate debate notwithstanding. There are plenty of things we debate on that the President does not agree with, the White House does not agree with. I ask my colleague from Missouri whether or not in his judgment he thinks what the administration is doing is adequate. Without losing my right to the floor, I ask him if he might respond to that.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I want my colleagues to take part in this. My colleague introduced a bill himself that provides tax credits for airplane tickets that costs five times this bill; $4.75 billion the Senator's bill costs. What are we talking about when we talk about ``costs too much?'' Let me ask the Senator from Arizona, could we bring this bill to the floor of the Senate within the next couple of days? I will curtail my comments, if we could get an agreement to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I will yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I heard the Senator from Arizona. I respect what he said in trying to characterize some discussions as negotiations. But I have been here for 18 years. Senator Bond has been here I think just about as long. He is the ranking member. He and I have worked together when he has been chairman and I, ranking member, and vice versa. The Small Business Committee is probably the least partisan committee of the Senate. We don't do anything if it isn't broadly by consensus. Eighteen members of our committee are cosponsors of this legislation. Sixty-two Senators are cosponsors of this effort to bring emergency assistance to small businesses of this country. We have now been waiting for 2 months while this bill has been held up by the great process of rolling holds and rolling theories of objection. While the Senator from Arizona politely characterizes it as a negotiation, there is nothing to negotiate based on what we have been offered. It is a basic gutting of the entire approach that is supposed to be in the form of a compromise. We are not to going to do that with 62 cosponsors of a piece of legislation that provides emergency assistance to businesses that need it. Let me quote briefly from yesterday's New York Times. It said the following: While it was expected that small businesses near the site of the World Trade Center would suffer from the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, which displaced 100,000 potential customers from office buildings in the area and thousands more from their homes, wider economic damage from the attack is still rippling outward from ground zero. . . . Some economic forecasters say they believe a wave of business failures in New York and elsewhere could come soon after the first of the year, as retailers and other entrepreneurs succumb to the continuing lack of new business in what is traditionally their busiest season. . . . while numerous grant and loan programs have sprung up to help small businesses recover from the disaster, business owners have complained, in a growing chorus, that the grants are too small to stem their losses and that loan agencies are not approving loans. Since the disaster, the United States Small Business Administration has approved only about one in three applications for disaster loans . . . [an] approval rate well below the rates . . . [of] other major disasters over the past decade. Carla Behrle, who designs, manufactures and sells custom- made leather clothing from a shop on Franklin Street in TriBeCa, said she was told by SBA officials that her application would be rejected because her business did not have enough cash flow to make the loan payments of $143 a month. ``Some people spend more than that on cigarettes,'' said Ms. Behrle, who does not smoke. She said the agency did not seem to take into account her plans for the money, which included relocating her business, which had revenues of about $125,000 last year, and shifting her focus to wholesale sales, eliminating her retail store. ``I spent hours and hours filling out all this paperwork,'' she said. ``If I had known what I know now, I would have put my energies elsewhere.'' Clearly, the administration's approach is not working. We have seen documented over the past months by a number of different articles from the Bureau of National Affairs and the Washington Post that this bill is being held up by the administration and by two colleagues in the Senate who are suggesting there are a series of different reasons for doing so. The last time there was an objection, Senator Kyl said he would return to the floor and explain why later. He never returned, and he didn't explain why. But we have had a different set of explanations in the course of our conversations. I have heard people say it is not that they really have an objection to the bill but they are acting as an agent, holding it so it can be reviewed, that they don't really have a hold on the bill but they have an objection to the process. Then we heard that it is duplicative of the administration's approach and it helps medium-sized and large businesses. Then we heard that perhaps the defaults will be too high. My personal favorite excuse for the delay is that some people want to remove the hold but they can't get into the quarantined office in order to get the necessary paperwork to submit to remove the hold, and so on, and so on--anything to try to run out the clock. The clock is running out on a lot of small businesses in the country. I believe that every single excuse offered to date for not proceeding forward on this bill is subject to an analysis that completely dismisses that particular excuse. We need to pass S. 1499, the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. I emphasize that the key word is ``emergency.'' Small businesses need help now. They have needed it since the terrorist attacks three months ago. However, as documented in several articles over the past months, from the Bureau of National Affairs to the Washington Post, the Administration and two of our colleagues in the Senate do not see the problems of small business as urgent. They have played games with the livelihoods of small business owners and their employees by putting ``holds'' on S. 1499 and therefore blocking passage of legislation to help small businesses. On November 27, I moved to bring S. 1499 up for a vote. Senator Kyl objected and said that he would explain why later. He never returned to the floor. I hope that he will do so today. Addressing the concerns of those opposed to this bill as reported in the press or told to small businesses calling to urge passage of S. 1499 is a moving target. One day it's too expensive. Next it's that they have no objection to the bill, but they are an ``agent,'' holding it so it can be reviewed, or, they don't have a ``hold'' on the bill, ``they have an objection to the process.'' Next it's duplicative of the administration's approach, and it helps medium-sized and large businesses. Then it's that defaults will be too high. My personal favorite is that they want to remove the hold but they can't get into their quarantined office to get the necessary paperwork to submit to remove the hold. And so on, and so on, and so on, anything to run out the clock. Let me explain why these objections are not well-founded: No. 1, Senator Kyl and the administration contend that this bill costs too much. Senator Kyl was quoted as saying in the Congressional Quarterly on November 28: ``We have a debt situation in this country right now. This bill is a big deal. It costs too much.'' Let me just state the obvious--small business is not what caused our debt situation. Even leveraging money to provide loans and venture capital and counseling through the SBA is not what caused our debt situation. In fact, the SBA suffered disproportionately in budget reduction for FY2002 compared to other Departments. The President's fiscal year 2002 budget cut funding for the SBA anywhere from 26 to 40 percent depending on how you look at it. Why the big difference? It is a 40-percent cut if you count the President's request to move the SBA disaster loan program out of SBA, SLASH the disaster loan part of the budget from $826 million to $300 million, and RAISE the interest rates on disaster victims. That's right, if the Bush administration's fiscal year 2002 budget had been implemented, the very program that Senator Kyl and the administration are claiming is the answer to the problems of small businesses, would now be underfunded, and would be charging small business disaster victims 5.4 percent versus the current 4 percent. Luckily, Senator Bond and I were successful earlier this year in passing a budget amendment to restore that funding. Let me go back to the comment, ``This bill costs too much.'' This bill costs too much compared to what? Compared to the $15 billion that will be given to the airline industry? Compared to the estimated $4.75 billion that Senator Kyl's S. 1500 would provide in tax credits for airplane tickets? Compared to the administration's approach of essentially declaring the entire Nation a disaster area and providing disaster loans nationwide? The Congressional Budget Office has informally scored S. 1499 as costing $860 million. Compared to the Kerry-Bond approach, Senator Kyl's bill costs 5.5 times more. Compared to the Kerry-Bond approach, the administration's approach through disaster loans costs almost 5 times more--4.67 times, to be exact. The administration's approach through economic injury disaster loans has a subsidy rate--that's the net cost to the taxpayer of running the program--of anywhere from 14 percent to 17 percent, depending on whose estimate you use. The Kerry-Bond approach, which provides the majority of assistance through the 7(a) loans, has a subsidy rate of 3 percent. The Kerry-Bond approach is more cost- effective. In practical terms, if we fully funded this bill, for $860 million we could leverage more than $25 billion in loans and venture capital to fill the market's gap in lending. To provide an equal amount of access to capital through the disaster loan program would cost taxpayers about $3.5 billion. These charts illustrate on a State-by-State basis how many small business will be helped by S. 1499 through 7(a) and 504 loans, and how much capital will become available in each state. For example, under this bill, more than 1,700 small business in Arizona could get loans to help recover from the terrorist attacks and the worsening economy. Under the administration's approach, only one small business has been helped in Arizona since September 11. No. 2, Senator Kyl contends this bill hasn't had sufficient review. According to the Washington Post, Senator Kyl says ``it is not a hold, but part of his role as chairman of the GOP steering committee to review bills that are being hustled through at the end of the session to make sure they have been properly `vetted.' `I'm just an agent,' '' Kyl said. Let me set the record straight on the process. This bill hasn't been ``hustled through.'' It was drafted with the input of small business organizations, trade associations and SBA's lending and counseling partners through more than 30 meetings and conference calls--conference calls because we couldn't ask folks to fly in the immediate weeks after the attacks. It is cosponsored by 18 of the Small Business Committee's members. And overall 62 Senators, including 20 Republicans, have joined me in cosponsoring S. 1499. On October 15, S. 1499 was cleared by both cloakrooms. It would have passed by unanimous consent that night if OMB hadn't called at the last minute and asked the GOP leadership to put a hold on the bill so that SBA could introduce its own solution the next day. On October 16, the committee sat down with staff from the SBA and incorporated changes to S. 1499 to address their concerns. Nevertheless, when the GOP leadership lifted its hold, Senator Kyl put a hold on the bill for the Republican Steering Committee. They have now held this emergency legislation for almost 2 months. On the House side, the Committee on Small Business passed the companion to S. 1499 by unanimous consent. There's nothing hustled about this bill. It was moved quickly because it is emergency legislation. It is a good bill because it can do a lot of good for a lot of people. It is being held because of shameful politics. If Senator Kyl and other members of the Republican Steering Committee want to vote against the bill, then we should give them the opportunity. I say let's bring this bill up for a vote. Small businesses have a right to know exactly who is working against them and who is working for them. And the Republican Steering Committee should know that blocking this emergency small business bill because of politics, or because they oppose the process, doesn't hurt me or Senator Bond, it doesn't hurt our Committee or the Democrats; it hurts small businesses and puts in jeopardy the jobs of thousands of Americans. Has anyone looked at the unemployment rates? Over the past 2 months, the nation has lost 799,000 jobs. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor yesterday, Monday, December 10, the jobless rate is now at 5.7 percent and economists expect it to peak out next year at between 6.5 and 7 percent. No matter how many tax credits we provide, if people don't think they will have a paycheck and are pessimistic about job prospects, they're not going to spend. The Consumer Confidence Index has declined for 4 straight months. According to Lynn Franco, director of the Conference Board's Consumer Research Center: ``Widespread layoffs and rising unemployment do not signal a rebound in confidence anytime soon. With the holiday season quickly approaching, there is little positive stimuli on the horizon.'' No. 3, Senator Kyl contends the defaults will be too high. If that were true, it would be reflected in the Congressional Budget Office's cost assessment of this bill. Subsidy rates for guarantee loan programs factor in not only fee income derived from the borrowers and lenders, but also the estimated defaults and recoveries. As I said earlier, the majority of loans to be made through this bill will be made through the SBA's 7(a) program. The subsidy rate for this program with incentives is estimated by CBO to be 3 percent. So, for every $100 loaned, it will cost $3. That does not indicate excessive default rates. And according to the administrator of SBA, the program is performing so well that in the President's fiscal year 2003 budget, OMB will reduce the subsidy rate for 7(a) loans by 50 percent. No. 4, Senator Kyl contends this bill is duplicative. It is not duplicative. The administration did adopt and implement a couple of provisions of the Kerry-Bond bill by expanding access to economic injury disaster loans through regulations. However, their approach is not comprehensive enough to help the range of small businesses with varying degrees of problems. As reported in the New York Times on October 31, ``more than half of the small businesses in New York City that have applied for Federal disaster loans since the World Trade Center attack have had their applications rejected, resulting in one of the lowest loan-approval rates in recent years among communities that have had to grapple with large-scale disasters.'' While I am glad that the administration finally acted to help small businesses, their approach is not getting at the problem. Their approach doesn't defer payments or allow refinancing. Ours does. The administration didn't meet with small business groups when shaping their approach. We did. The administration didn't sit down with Senators Schumer and Clinton and ask how they could be of particular help to those businesses in ground zero. We did. Consequently, these are reasons why small business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are pushing for passage of the Kerry-Bond bill. Let me give you insight into the damage suffered by just one group of affected small businesses: the chauffeured ground transportation industry. That industry used to employ about a 160,000 people. Since September 11, they have laid off approximately 80,000--half the jobs. Again, that's just one of many industries in trouble. If Senator Kyl's office, the members of the Republican Steering Committee and the administration listened to or read the letters from the United Motorcoach Association or the National Limousine Association, they would know that they need working capital to keep their businesses alive until they can restructure or until more normal business conditions return. And to have sufficient working capital, the ones in the New York and New Jersey that make their bread and butter from business from JFK Airport, La Guardia Airport, and Newark Airport need deferments. And they need to be able to refinance their debt. They aren't asking for hand-outs. They are asking for loans that they will pay back. The SBA is supposed to help small businesses. The administration's approach isn't working, so it is our responsibility to tailor SBA's programs so that together they can effectively address the needs of small businesses. Let me read this quote from an article in the Wall Street Journal published on Tuesday, November 6, 2001. They are the words of Mr. John Rutledge, chairman of Rutledge Capital in New Canaan, CT, and a former economic advisor to the Reagan administration: Interest rate reductions alone are not enough to jump-start this economy. We need to make sure cheaper credit reaches the companies that need it . . . The Fed is cutting interest rates--but the money isn't reaching capital-starved small businesses because Treasury regulators are cracking down on bank loans. Credit rationing, not interest rates, is the real problem with the economy. . . . This problem didn't start on September 11. For more than a year U.S. banks have been closed for business lending. Unless the current Bush administration takes steps to restore bank lending to small businesses and heal the asset markets now, the economy will stay weak. No. 5, Senator Kyl contends this bill helps medium-sized and large businesses. This bill does not help medium-sized and large businesses. For 1 year only, S. 1499 allows businesses for certain industries in limited areas--the areas hardest hit--New York, Virginia and the contiguous areas designated as disasters--to be considered small for purposes of accessing disaster loan assistance. In addition, like the administration's own legislative request in the DoD appropriations bill now pending in conference, S. 1499 gives discretion to the Administrator to raise any size standards not named in this bill to respond to the higher costs in New York City. These businesses are included in those eligible for assistance in order to compensate for the unique magnitude of their damage and the expensive markets they are in. The ones named in this bill were created in cooperation with the New York City Economic Development Corporation through the offices of Senators Schumer and Clinton. For example, S. 1499 raises the size standards for restaurants from $5 million to $8 million. Annual revenues of $5 million for a restaurant in States like Arizona or Massachusetts or Florida might seem like a medium-sized or large business, but according to Mayor Giuliani's staff, it could be merely a fancy coffee shop in Manhattan. In order to really help small businesses in New York City, the city recommended raising the size standard to $8 million. These are loans, not grants, and it makes sense to take advice from those experts who know the markets of their small businesses. Travel agencies have been hard hit in all of our States. Raising the size standard from $1 million to $2 million is not excessive. In fact, the travel agents want to know why we can help the airlines but not them. Size standards need to keep pace with inflation. The current standards are inadequate under normal market conditions, much less a disaster of this gravity and so unique in nature. No. 6, the administration contends that the Kerry-Bond approach displaces the private sector. Weighing in on this bill for the first time in writing almost 2 months after S. 1499 was introduced, here's what the Administrator said to me in a letter dated November 30: ``SBA is also concerned with Section 5 and Section 6 of S. 1499. . . . [because it] could make government guaranteed small business loans more attractive than conventional loans, potentially displacing private sector options.'' I think the administration has our proposals confused. It is the Kerry-Bond approach that uses 5,000 plus private-sector lenders who are experienced at making SBA loans to help deliver this assistance to small businesses. It is the administration's approach that makes loans directly from the SBA, which cuts out the private sector. This bill does not cost too much. This bill is not duplicative of what the administration has already put into place. This bill does not encourage defaults. This bill does not help big businesses. This bill does not cut out the private sector. This bill has not been rushed through the Senate. On the contrary, this emergency legislation has been blocked from being considered for 2 months. I want to emphasize that this obstruction should not be blamed on all Republicans. My colleague Senator Bond has worked in earnest to pass this bill, and the bill has 20 Republican cosponsors. I greatly appreciate their cooperation, and I know small businesses, their employees and the groups that represent small business appreciate their support. If they really want to prove their support, before we adjourn for the holiday, they will vote in favor of invoking cloture, and they will vote in favor of the bill when it comes up for a final vote. It ought to be the subject of a debate in the Senate. We ought to have a vote. Let the Senate do its work. We could dispense with this bill in 3, 4 hours or less. If someone wants to bring an amendment, let them bring an amendment. We have an opportunity to be able to do that. The Senator from Arizona was quoted in the Congressional Quarterly on November 28 saying: We have a debt situation in the country right now. This bill is a big deal. It costs too much. Let me state the obvious. Small business is not what caused the debt in this country. Even leveraging money to provide loans and venture capital and counseling through the SBA is not what caused our debt situation. In fact, the SBA suffered disproportionately in budget reductions for fiscal year 2002 compared to other departments. The President's budget cut the funding for SBA anywhere from 26 to 40 percent, depending on how you make the analysis. Senator Bond and I came in with an amendment. I am pleased to say we were able to try to prevent that cut. But let me go back to the comment of the Senator from Arizona that it costs too much.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that an article from the front page of yesterday's New York Times regarding the ripples of September 11 widening in retailing and the extraordinary impact of September 11, not just at ground zero but broadly across the country on small businesses, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished majority leader, and I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am pleased to yield.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Arizona. I would like to respond and say a few words, if I may, about the small business bill.