John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

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.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I ask my colleague from Arizona, without losing my right to the floor, if his propounding of that request indicates that somehow his denial of the ability to proceed forward on the small business bill is linked to the request he just made regarding the nomination.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe I have the floor after the request.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to do so.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I understand the Senator is asking me if I would simply yield for the purpose of his propounding a unanimous- consent request.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask to be permitted to proceed for a moment to discuss the unanimous-consent request I just made.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the majority leader, following consultation with the Republican leader, may, at any time, at his selection, in conjunction with the minority leader, move to the consideration of Calendar No. 186, S. 1499; and that the bill would then be considered under limitations to be established in consultation between the two leaders.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to say a few words about S. 1196, the Small Business Investment Company, SBIC, Amendments Act of 2001. For those who don't know, the SBIC program is a very successful partnership between the SBA and private venture capital firms. It has accounted for about half of all venture capital deals done in the country over the past few years, and it has helped finance some of America's companies that are now house-hold names--Federal Express, Intel, Outback Steakhouse, America Online, Callaway Golf, and Massachusetts' own Staples. The main purpose of this act is to adjust the fees charged to Participating Security SBICs from 1 percent to 1.38 percent. The change is necessary because, at the President's request, all funding for this program was eliminated. I disagree with that. I preferred to show fiscal responsibility by level funding the program and then increasing the fees only as much as necessary to raise the program level from $2 billion to $3.5 billion. Consistent with that opinion, as my colleagues may remember, Senator Bond and I offered an amendment to the Budget Resolution, Amendment No. 183, that did just that. It was agreed to in the Senate by voice vote in April and retained in the final budget resolution. Unfortunately, the appropriators had very tough decisions to make and the funding agreed to in our budget amendment was not included in the appropriations process. Despite my disagreement, I am supporting S. 1196 because if we want to continue this program, it must be funded entirely through fees, which forces us to authorize the fee change. For the record, let me state that the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies testified before both the Senate and House Committees on Small Business in favor of increasing the program level from $2 billion to $3.5 billion and raising the fees to make that level possible. As I just explained, this legislation makes that possible. This bill also includes modifications to the program in order to strengthen the oversight and authority of the SBA to take action against bad actors, to protect the integrity of the SBIC program, and to streamline operations. With this bill, I am offering an amendment, cosponsored by Senator Bond, to reinforce our efforts to keep the economy strong. The amendment strikes section six, which my colleagues in the House included when they deliberated and voted on this bill, and replaces it with similar language which accommodates changes requested by the Administration. Specifically, starting in FY2003, it reduces for two years the fees for the Small Business Administration's 7(a) and 504 loan guarantee programs in order to make these loans more affordable for borrowers to access capital and lenders to make. In reducing the fees, it gives the largest reduction to the smallest small business borrowers, those who take out loans of less than $150,000. It also provides fee relief for small business borrowers who need working capital for medium-sized loans, those in amounts of between $150,000 and $700,000. The 7(a) program is one of the SBA's most popular and successful small business credit programs. In FY2000, 43,748 small businesses were approved for 7(a) loans, which added up to $9.3 billion. Of those billions, 31 percent went to minority business owners, 11 percent went to veteran business owners, and 16 percent went to women business owners. These loans would not have been made but for the SBA; in order to get an SBA loan, borrowers must demonstrate that they are unable to get comparable credit, at comparable rates, from an area lender. Year after year, as this program has generated billions of dollars in small business development, fueled job creation and generated tax revenue, its default rates by cohort have dropped sharply since 1990 from more than 6 percent to less than 2 percent. Not only have these loans contributed to the economy, but the program has largely paid for itself. From fiscal years 1992 through 1998, Congress appropriated close to $1.4 billion to run the program, and the lenders and borrowers paid $1.3 billion more than necessary in fees to participate in the program. The track record of the 504 program is equally impressive, and they too have overpaid because the SBA and OMB have over-estimated the cost of providing these loans. Reducing fees will help encourage lending at a time when surveys from the Federal Reserve have found that anywhere from 35 to 45 percent of banks have tightened credit to small businesses, making it harder and more expensive to get loans. Originally, my amendment also included a provision to require the SBA to give new markets venture capital companies two years to raise their matching capital. Even though we had legislated in the 106th Congress to give them two years, and Senator Hollings and Senator Gregg reinforced this by making the relevant matching capital available until expended as part of supplemental funding to the FY2001 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, the Small Business Administration required the approved new markets venture capital companies to raise their money first in six months, and later proposed extending the period to one year. The declining economy, particularly in the aftermath of September 11, has made raising capital even more difficult. Consequently, these companies need more time than one year. Here is what Dr. Julia Sass Rubin, a community development venture capital expert from the Harvard Business School, has explained about the nature of raising funds these days: ``This task of raising capital for a new fund is particularly challenging during an economic slowdown, when the sources of funds for any kind of venture capital become more difficult to access. Additionally, with the dramatic recent slowdown in initial public offerings, even traditional venture capitalists are having a very difficult time raising money. It is simply not practical to expect a new CDVC fund to capitalize within one year.'' I am very happy to report that we were able to work out a compromise with the Small Business Administration to give these companies to year and half to raise their capital. It's not the full two years, but I am hopeful that the new markets venture capital companies can raise their capital in the that time. The Administration has also recommitted to offering a second round of funding starting in the August/September time frame of 2002. Let me quickly explain a bit about this innovative venture capital initiative. The new markets venture capital initiative is modeled after the SBA's very successful SBIC program, which I talked about earlier. However, unlike the SBIC program which makes larger deals, new markets venture capital companies target smaller investments to the development of high-growth small businesses in our country's poorest urban and rural areas. They tie those investments to the creation of local jobs with livable wages and benefits for individuals who historically have no opportunities for employment or who are the working poor. One excellent example of such a company is City Fresh Foods in Dorchester, Massachusetts. They run a smart business, providing a needed service to the elderly in their community by producing and distributing meals for the Meals-on-Wheels program. They hire from the community, and they provide good jobs with sustainable wages. The SBA's new markets venture capital investments, if given a real chance to work, could help develop more companies like City Fresh Foods. I ask my colleagues to support this bill, and ask my colleagues in the House to pass this bill as soon as possible. I thank Senator Bond for his work on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 2196

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor today as a cosponsor of S. 697, the Railroad Retirement and Survivors Improvement Act. Senator Baucus and Senator Hatch have worked hard on this bill with railroad management and labor and have created a final product of which they should be proud. This bill will fundamentally improve the economic situation for more than 400,000 American railroad employees and their survivors, while reducing the tax burden on rail employees and railroads. After three long years of hard work, rail labor and management have come together to create a new system to provide for rail retirees and their survivors. The Senate should ratify this proposal by adopting the amendment today. Let me recap quickly what this amendment does: Most importantly, we allow survivors of railroaders to receive 100 percent of the benefits earned by their spouse, or, in some cases, parent. In most cases, that means an immediate doubling of income for employees' survivors. We also reduce the time needed for a worker to become vested in the Railroad Retirement system from 10 years to five years. That's consistent with 401(k) plans and similar retirement packages in other industries. Finally, we lower the tax burden on railroads and employees, while increasing the return on funds invested in the system. That's good for workers, and it's good for business. When income tax is factored in, some of these railroad companies have a combined tax burden of 50 percent. That's unforgivably high for any company, especially for smaller railroads, such as short lines, which are already struggling with huge capital needs. Unfortunately, some will allege that this legislation is only needed because the Railroad Retirement System needed an economic ``bailout,'' but that is a false claim. Tier One benefits are funded by the same mechanism that we use to fund Social Security, employers and employees each pay a 15.3 percent payroll tax into a trust fund which is used to pay current benefits. Since 1950, assets in the Tier One fund and Social Security Trust Fund have been moved to ensure that railroaders were not disadvantaged by changes in Social Security benefits and also to unify benefits for workers eligible for both Social Security and Railroad Retirement benefits. Unfortunately, between 1950 and 1974, more than $3.5 billion flowed out of the Railroad Retirement Trust fund and into the Social Security Trust Fund. That money was finally repaid last year, and I think it's important that everyone understands that this bill does not in any way change Tier One benefits, which Railroad Retirement's equivalent of Social Security. When this bill is enacted, more than 400,000 former employees, spouses and children will see an increase in benefits. More than 500 companies will see their overwhelming payroll tax burden decrease. That is a good deal for everyone, and there's no reason not to move forward on this legislation today. I urge my colleagues to support cloture.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for such time as I may use.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is remaining for the opponents of the Lott amendment?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, that very large increase of blue is based on the best assumption of what might be findable, am I correct?

Mr. KERRY. How many billions of barrels does that assume would be present?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will speak to some of the comments we just heard. I must say, I am a little bit disturbed that the quality the debate is already, to some degree, seeming to move into sort of a personal characterization about who is representing whom. I heard one Senator from Alaska suggest that all this is is an effort to smokescreen, that it is a membership drive for environmentalists. My very good friend, the senior Senator from Alaska, suggested that radical environmentalists are driving this issue. Well, I don't know who he is talking about. I haven't talked to any radical environmentalists. In fact, the fundamentals of my decision on this issue are not based on environmental choices; they are based on energy choices, based on economics, and they are based on the realities of the choices we face in this country about oil. I completely agree with the Senator from Alaska that some wonderful products that all of us use every day are oil-based. Indeed, we are going to continue to make those products. There is nobody here who is talking about eliminating one of those products--not one of them. Those products don't spit out emissions from the exhaust on the back of a vehicle that is contributing to the problem of global warming. Those products are used and manufactured--many of them--in very different ways. No one that I have heard in this debate is talking about not drilling for oil or not using oil. This country faces--I don't know--a 40- to 50-year transition in order to begin to be able to really shift away from our dependency on oil. It happens that that 50-year curve also coincides very precisely with the problems we face on global warming. Ask any of the leading scientists in the United States--not Senators, not people who go out and do fundraising and represent interests in the U.S. Senate--what they can tell you about what we face in terms of potential catastrophic--and I underscore that they use the word ``catastrophic''--climatic shifts about 50 years from now. That is precisely the amount of time we face with respect to the potential for weaning ourselves from the dependency on oil. Now, I hope we can stay away from these characterizations. I don't represent any group. I represent the State of Massachusetts. I represent my oath of office as a Senator to uphold the Constitution and look out for the welfare of our country. I believe the welfare of our country is better served when we begin to create a true, independent energy policy--a policy that brings us to independence from reliance on oil. That is going to take a long time. I have no illusions about that. There is no windmill that is going to substitute for that tomorrow. There is no renewable or biomass that is going to substitute tomorrow. It will take a period of transition and work. It is important that we deal with the realities of this debate. The Senator from Alaska is absolutely correct when he says that a 6-month supply is not the appropriate way to talk about this issue because that represents if the United States were cut off from all fuel. He is absolutely correct. A 6-month supply--if you indeed have the amounts of oil some people suggest might be there--is only a viable number if there were no other suppliers from other places in the rest of the world. None of us are presuming, given our relationship with Great Britain, Venezuela, Mexico, and other countries in the world, including our increasingly renewed relationship with Russia, and our own production--nobody is really looking at that as the potential. This is a phony debate. The reason I say that is that I heard my colleagues trying to scare Americans into believing that they ought to somehow start digging in the Arctic because we are at war in Afghanistan, we have a threat in the Middle East, national security is at stake, and the military is at stake. We have heard veterans groups recited here. I am a cofounder of the Vietnam Veterans of America. I am a proud veteran. I am proud of my service. I know enough about the military and the military needs, the 300,000 or so barrels a day the military might consume under these circumstances, to recognize that the 8 million barrels we produce in the United States is going to satisfy the needs in an emergency of the military. Moreover, Mr. President, let me suggest to you why this is such an artificial debate. There are more than 7,000 leases for oil and gas development in the Gulf of Mexico open for exploration and for development today. As I stand here on the floor of the Senate tonight, 7,000 leases are open for exploration, more than 80 percent covering 32 million acres, and are not producing oil. They are not drilling for oil. They could be. Anybody who comes to the Senate floor and says that today you have to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge because the United States is threatened is not telling the truth to the American people because the fact is that there are countless millions--32 million, precisely, not countless. It is not just because they don't have oil that they are not drilling. They are not drilling because they are being mapped for future production or they are simply sitting idle by choice because the economics drive that choice. Individual companies that own leases have decided, for business reasons and most likely because of the oil price or infrastructure limitations, they are not going to develop those leases now. They are waiting for the price of oil to maximize profits. In fact, some companies--Exxon, to be precise--are letting their leases in the United States sit idle while they invest in Saudi Arabia and other countries. So don't let any Member of the U.S. Senate be cowed or stampeded into believing that this has anything to do with the current national security issue of Afghanistan or the Middle East. We have oil we could be drilling today. Moreover, 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf is open for drilling--95 percent of it. Here is an article from The Energy Report, July 30, 2001: Responding to increased industry interests in North Slope gas, the State of Alaska plans to open up new acreage in the North Slope foothills. . . . Governor Tony Knowles recently announced that beginning next May the State would include additional acreage in the 7 million acre Foothills region in area-wide oil and gas lease sales in its 2002-2006 leasing schedule. . . . Moreover: The Bureau of Land Management expects to hold a second oil and gas lease sale in the northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska in June 2002. The agency will reoffer approximately 3 million acres made available, but not leased in the prior NPR-A sale in May 1999. There it is. So there is no rush here. In effect, what we have in the ground in the Alaska Wildlife Refuge, should the United States ever be pushed to a corner and our back is up against the wall, we are at war or there is some circumstance where our allies have forsaken us, and we haven't been smart enough as a government to make the choices that we have today to move to alternatives and renewables and other forms of power, then we will have the most God-given ready natural Petroleum Strategic Reserve. Rather than buying it and putting it in the ground, it is in the ground, and we leave it there for that moment when the United States might need it. I believe the reason I am here opposing this--not at the behest of any group--is because I have for 30 years been watching the United States procrastinate. I remember as a young law student sitting in line at gas stations studying my torts and contracts while I was waiting an hour and a half to get gas. That was 1973. We were told: We have to be energy independent; we have to work at this. Then we imported 30 percent of our oil from other countries. Today we are over 50 percent. The fact is, there is one simple reality that our friends from Alaska avoid: 25 percent of the oil reserves of the world are in other countries. We use 25 percent. The United States of America uses 25 percent of the oil reserves, but we only have 3 percent. Any schoolkid can figure out that if you only have 3 percent of something and you are using 25 percent, you either stop using it or you are going to have to get it from those other people. That is exactly what we are stuck in today. No matter what figure we give the Senator from Alaska--if I take the top figure of the Department of the Interior--and say it is $16 billion and you amortize that out, 1 million barrels a day, 365 days a year, so it is 1 billion barrels every 3 years or so----

Mr. KERRY. I want to finish what I am saying. We have very little time. We are going to have weeks to debate this when we come back in January, and I look forward to that debate to a great extent because that is when we are going to help America view the possibility of alternatives. For instance, in Europe, they have diesel engines. Their cars get 60 miles to the gallon with a diesel engine. It is exactly as powerful as many of our cars. The cars can go as fast. If you want to break the speed limit with your 60-miles-per-gallon diesel, you can break the speed limit, but you get 60 miles doing it. We are going backwards. We used to get 27 miles per gallon. Now we are down to 22. We are doing worse than we were doing in 1973 when we said we would have to be energy independent. Mr. President, there is a long litany, all the way through the years, that world consumption of oil is about 70 million barrels a day. We produce 8 million barrels. The amount that we produce, even if we included additional oil from Alaska, will never be sufficient to impact the price of oil in the world market. So when my colleagues come to the Chamber and suggest we are going to somehow change the price or increase the supply on a long-term basis, that is not true, and I will document it. From 1972 to 1975, America produced more than 70 percent of our oil domestically. Oil prices climbed more than 400 percent when we produced it domestically. From 1979 through 1981, America produced more than 50 percent of its oil, and oil prices more than doubled. That spike was set off by a number of events: OPEC, the Iranian revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis, Middle Eastern production cuts, and the onset of the Iran-Iraq war. Through all of 1991, we produced 50 percent of our oil domestically. Oil prices doubled. In 1999, we produced slightly less than 50 percent of our oil. Oil prices tripled from the historic flows. The reverse has also been true. We have had low oil prices, and we have had high imports. When oil reached a near record low in the late 1990s, guess what. Imports climbed over 50 percent. The fact is that U.S. production will not lower and stabilize the global price. Look at Great Britain. Great Britain is surplus in oil. Great Britain produces enough oil to export. They do not affect the global price as a consequence of even being independent. There is no British market for oil. Prices rise and fall in Britain with the world price, and we all know that for reasons of history, allegiance, economics, and national security, they are enmeshed in global affairs as we are. I will quote Lee Raymond, chairman and chief executive of ExxonMobile: The idea that this country can ever again be energy independent is outmoded and probably was even in the era of Richard Nixon. The point is that no industry in the world is more globalized than our industry. The conservative Cato Institute has said: Even if all the oil we consumed in this country came from Texas and Alaska, every drop of it, assume we didn't import any oil from the Persian Gulf, prices would be just as high today, and the main reason is that domestic prices will rise to the world prices. That is the Cato Institute. Do not tell us in this Chamber this is going to affect independence. It is not. We cannot produce enough oil. Do not tell us it is going to affect world price because there is not an economist who suggests it will. Then the question is: So why are we doing this? There is a better way than this alternative. We need to wean ourselves from oil, and we need to engage in a program--H.R. 4 is an extraordinary giveaway program that does not do any of the things we need to do in energy policy to create a truly independent nation. I suggest this debate is going to be long, it is going to be interesting, and we are going to provide this country with a set of alternatives. I am all for helping the folks in Alaska. I admire the way both Senators are fighting for the people of their State, but we can find a better way to help the people in Alaska. There is an awful lot of oil. We should be building the natural gas pipeline tomorrow. If we want to help the people of Alaska, that is the best way we can create jobs. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Murkowski, Baucus and Grassley in introducing the Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act, MARCIA. This legislation will give health care providers relief from unnecessary and burdensome government regulations that threaten to interfere with the delivery of health care to our nation's Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare provides health care coverage for over 40 million senior and disabled Americans, relying on thousands of health care providers, including doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices, to deliver services, and more than fifty private health insurance companies to process millions of claims. While this public-private partnership forms the linchpin of the Medicare program, it is not as strong as it could be. Health care providers rightfully complain that Medicare has become too complex, with changes to claims payment systems made so frequently that they can not keep up. Today, Medicare providers are subjected to over 100,000 pages of regulations that are continuously being modified. Many providers complain that they have less time to spend on patient care because they are spending more time trying to understand how to comply with massive amounts of paperwork and constantly evolving regulatory requirements. The current Medicare appeals process is also problematic. It takes far too long to appeal an incorrect Medicare decision, often taking several years to complete. This system, coupled with some of the tactics used by the Federal Government and its contractors in collecting Medicare overpayments, leaves providers feeling frustrated, confused, and besieged. Regulations necessary to ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the Medicare program must be maintained and enforced, however, the occasionally aggressive means through which these regulations are administered has discouraged many providers from wanting to participate in the Medicare program. The Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act, MARCIA, will strengthen the Medicare public-private partnership. The bill has five primary components. First, it relieves burdens on beneficiaries and providers by requiring the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to issue new rules and policies in an orderly and reasonable manner. Second, it provides new appeals protections for all Medicare fee-for-service providers and beneficiaries. Third, it allows CMS to use competition to select the best available administrative contractors to serve beneficiaries and providers. Fourth, it requires Medicare contractors and CMS to place a greater emphasis on provider education and outreach. Finally, it makes the Medicare overpayment collection and extrapolation process more fair. The bill accomplishes all of these objectives without undermining the False Claims Act or other Medicare fraud recovery efforts, and I urge my colleagues to join with me to secure its passage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I am pleased to join my colleagues Senators Murkowski, Baucus and Grassley in introducing the Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act, MARCIA. This legislation will give health care providers relief from unnecessary and burdensome government regulations that threaten to interfere with the delivery of health care to our nation's Medicare beneficiaries. Medicare provides health care coverage for over 40 million senior and disabled Americans, relying on thousands of health care providers, including doctors, nurses, hospitals, nursing homes, home care agencies, and hospices, to deliver services, and more than fifty private health insurance companies to process millions of claims. While this public-private partnership forms the linchpin of the Medicare program, it is not as strong as it could be. Health care providers rightfully complain that Medicare has become too complex, with changes to claims payment systems made so frequently that they can not keep up. Today, Medicare providers are subjected to over 100,000 pages of regulations that are continuously being modified. Many providers complain that they have less time to spend on patient care because they are spending more time trying to understand how to comply with massive amounts of paperwork and constantly evolving regulatory requirements. The current Medicare appeals process is also problematic. It takes far too long to appeal an incorrect Medicare decision, often taking several years to complete. This system, coupled with some of the tactics used by the Federal Government and its contractors in collecting Medicare overpayments, leaves providers feeling frustrated, confused, and besieged. Regulations necessary to ensuring the integrity and efficiency of the Medicare program must be maintained and enforced, however, the occasionally aggressive means through which these regulations are administered has discouraged many providers from wanting to participate in the Medicare program. The Medicare Appeals, Regulatory and Contracting Improvement Act, MARCIA, will strengthen the Medicare public-private partnership. The bill has five primary components. First, it relieves burdens on beneficiaries and providers by requiring the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, CMS, to issue new rules and policies in an orderly and reasonable manner. Second, it provides new appeals protections for all Medicare fee-for-service providers and beneficiaries. Third, it allows CMS to use competition to select the best available administrative contractors to serve beneficiaries and providers. Fourth, it requires Medicare contractors and CMS to place a greater emphasis on provider education and outreach. Finally, it makes the Medicare overpayment collection and extrapolation process more fair. The bill accomplishes all of these objectives without undermining the False Claims Act or other Medicare fraud recovery efforts, and I urge my colleagues to join with me to secure its passage.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, Senator Bond and I have been trying to bring S. 1499 before the Senate since it was introduced, but literally for more than 1 month steadily, we have been held up, depriving the Senate of an appropriate debate and depriving us of an opportunity to achieve maybe 90 to 95 votes for this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to Calendar No. 186, S. 1499; that the Kerry-Bond substitute amendment which is at the desk be considered and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, be read three times, passed, and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I understand the Senator from Arizona has indeed objected to this bill for a period of time now, as I referenced moments ago. I regret that. We have tried to work out the issues with respect to what is the American Small Business Emergency Relief and Recovery Act of 2001. The ranking member of the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee, Senator Bond, has joined me for some period of time now in trying to move this important legislation for the small businesses of our country. We have 55 cosponsors of this bill, a majority of the Senate, prepared to help the small businesses of the country. Two United States Senators, I regret to say, oppose this bill, and we are not able to proceed forward. We have the support of the Airport Ground Transportation Association, the American Bus Association, the Association of Women's Business Centers, the CDC Small Business Finance, the Chicago Association of Neighborhood Development Organizations, the Citizens Financial Group of Rhode Island, the Clovis Community Bank of California, the Coastal Enterprises of Maine, the County of San Diego, the Delaware Community Reinvestment Act Council, the Fairness in Rural Lending Group, the Florida Atlantic University Small Business Development Center, the Helicopter Association, the National Association of Development Companies, the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders-- some 5,000-plus lenders--the National Community Reinvestment Association, the National League of Cities, the National Limousine Association, the National Restaurant Association, the National Small Business United, National Tour Association, the Rural Housing Institute, the Rural Opportunities, Small Business Legislative Council, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the United States Tour Operator Association, the Women's Business Development Center, and others. This amendment incorporates a number of improvements that Senator Bond and I have made at the recommendation of the administration and of other colleagues and of the business community. It seeks to provide help to small businesses nationwide that are struggling because of the events of September 11, exacerbating an already declining economy in the months prior to September 11. They need access to working capital until normal operations resume, or until they can restructure or change the business to address the market changes. Many small businesses simply cannot find the working capital they need, even though they are a viable business under normal circumstances, because of this momentary downturn, because of an abrupt cutoff of business due to the reduction in auto rentals, hotel rentals, visits to restaurants, travel and therefore business with travel agencies. All of those immediately impacted by the events of September 11 are living out an aberration in the economy. It is not the normal course of doing business. Those are businesses that could be viable in a matter of months, which we do not want to lose, providing in the normal course of business we provide them with adequate access to credit. The problem is, all across the country, we know credit has tightened up as a consequence of the outlook of the economy. So we create this self-fulfilling prophecy, this cycle of a downward trend as a consequence of people saying: I think the economy looks bad. . . . We have to hold back on those loans. . . . Consequently, they hold back on the loans and then, indeed, the economy looks bad because the failures ensue because working businesses do not get their capital. In American Banker, they wrote the following: Lenders were already skittish following the steep economic decline of the past year. The events of September 11 have diminished their confidence and dimmed their prospect for recovery. This bill is geared to try to provide emergency lending completely within the current law and capacity of the Small Business Administration. It builds on SBA's disaster loans, the 7(a) working capital loans, the 504 loans for equipment and building improvements, the venture capital investments and expanded access to SBA's business counseling. SBA has done an extraordinary job of leveraging small amounts of money into larger amounts of money in the country. Let me point out that one of the objections of our colleagues who keep stopping us from proceeding forward is that this bill will cost money. Based on a 1992 study by Price Waterhouse, the $17 billion of 7(a) loans authorized by this bill will yield tax revenues from the small businesses borrowers of about $2.5 billion in the first year alone, more than off-setting the cost of the entire bill. This bill is fiscally responsible. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has informally scored S. 1499 at $860 million if all aspects are fully funded and utilized. CBO has estimated that the vast majority of the loans provided by S. 1499 (those made under section 7(a) of the Small Business Act) will cost 3 percent; that means that for every $100 loaned, the cost to the government is $3. This is a cost-effective way to provide necessary access to capital to small businesses throughout the country. The judgment that is made in making a loan is how assured is that return on investment or what is the track record of the people to whom you are lending. The fact is that the track record of the Small Business Administration over the last years has been improving steadily and is at a rate today that would suggest this is a positive undertaking for the Government of the United States. It is particularly important for us to engage in it. In fact, the Administrator of the SBA recently said at a conference that the cost of the 7(a) program will be 50 percent less in FY 2003. I might point out that if one were to take a number of the businesses that have been helped by the Small Business Administration--and I will be very quick because I know my colleague from Missouri wants to speak--the entire budget of the SBA for several years has been paid for many times over by the tax revenues that have come from the success stories of the companies that the SBA has funded. How many of our colleagues are aware that SBA was involved in funding Fed Ex, SBA was involved in the funding of Callaway Golf, SBA was involved in the funding of Intel? Intel alone has returned more in terms of the tax revenue in this country than the entire annual budget of SBA. So we have many small businesses that are currently trying to stave off bankruptcies. They are trying to prevent the doors from being closed. They want to keep people working, and keeping those people working is in itself a stimulus for the United States because those are people who pay their health bills, pay their mortgages, make their car payments, and all of that begins to restore the health of the economy in the long run. I urge my colleagues to take up this legislation in the next few days. Small businesses are asking Members to do this. Our friends in the House of Representatives, Congressman Don Manzullo, chairman of the committee, and Congressman Jim Moran have introduced a companion bill and are gearing up to pass it as soon as possible. I hope my 55 colleagues, who are consponsors of this, and others waiting to vote for it, and the small businesses who need it, will be liberated from this hold in the Senate. Mr. President, I thank my 55 colleagues who are cosponsors of this bill, with a special thanks to Senator Bond, the ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. I also want to thank the many supporters of this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the list of cosponsors and several of the many letters of support for the legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, what is the matter before the Senate?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, at some point that is appropriate--this is not the time; I might do it after I ask unanimous consent and speak on some other business--I certainly would want to speak to the issue the Senator from Alaska has raised a number of times on the floor of the Senate. I will say, a moment ago he asked the question: Where else are you going to provide 250,000 jobs a series of times? The fact is, there is a sensible energy policy for this country and a way to provide many more than 250,000 jobs by properly pursuing a series of measures other than violating the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. It is such a false premise, such a false offering for jobs that it really obviates most of the commonsense approaches to energy that the Senate has yet to debate. I very much look forward to the debate the Senator promises us. It will be a good debate. There are millions of jobs awaiting Americans in a sensible energy approach, and millions of Americans understand that and are waiting for us to move to that approach as rapidly as possible. What is really interesting about the debate about the Arctic wildlife refuge, so much as there is a debate, is that not a drop of oil is going to come in the near term and answer any of the immediate needs of national security with respect to our dependency. Moreover, most of the world's reserves are everywhere else but the United States. So whatever Alaska has to offer, we have great respect for Alaska. We love the 95 percent of the oil shelf that is available for drilling. It is not going to be a literal drop in the bucket with respect to the independence issue or the global price of oil. So these are all issues that await us. It is an important debate for the country to have. There will be no difference in the outcome whether that debate takes place in December or takes place in January, as the majority leader has promised us. So I anticipate the budget of this country, which still awaits action by the Senate, and the Defense appropriations bill itself, which is important to the funding of our troops immediately, ought to take precedence over that other debate which incidentally has been begging for its proper attention for some 30 years or more. I do not think another month is going to make all that much difference in the outcome. So I do look forward to it.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I voted in support of the Enzi Amendment to the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act because I believed that after nearly 2 years of working towards a compromise on this very important issue, it was time to move forward and provide States with guidance on how to level the playing field for Internet and bricks and mortar retail establishments. Of equal importance is that in this time when State coffers are shrinking and State spending requirements are increasing with the need to pay for the increased security needs each State now faces, we cannot in good conscience short change the States. Let me be clear. I do not support a tax on the Internet. The Enzi amendment did not tax the Internet. It simply provided a way to move towards a system where States can collect taxes that are already owed. Moreover, I strongly support a permanent ban on Internet access taxes. The Enzi amendment intended to create such a ban. If there were questions as to whether that intent was fully carried out by the language as drafted, I believe we could have addressed those questions adequately in conference. I oppose discriminatory Internet taxes. Again, the Enzi amendment banned such taxes for 5 years and ultimately such a ban will be made permanent. It is also important to point out that the Enzi amendment, had it succeeded, would not have been the final word on whether States could begin collecting taxes owed on Internet sales. After up to 5 years of working towards a compromise, and after at least 20 States agreed to simplify their tax collection systems in a uniform manner, Congress still would have had the opportunity to vote down a simplification plan, if we believed it was unfairly burdensome to Internet or other remote sellers. That provision provided a critical measure of assurance that States could not unfairly insist on the collection of taxes. I was an original cosponsor of the Internet tax moratorium that only recently expired, and I hope, with the additional 2-year moratorium that we have just enacted we will enjoy some measure of success in forging a compromise that will have broad support. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that Internet companies are never required to divine the tax rate of a consumer in one of thousands of taxable jurisdictions. In addition, I will work to ensure that uniform definitions for taxable property are part of any simplification plan, so that companies do not have to analyze different definitions for the same item in different states. Uniformity in auditing procedures, filing requirements and remittance forms will also be goals we will continue to try to reach. Equity dictates that we do not treat the taxation of goods differently simply because of the method by which they were sold. I look forward to continuing to work on this issue so that we can find a way to reach that goal that is fair to States, consumers, Internet companies and traditional retailers.