Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last week, an excellent article in the New York Times of August 29 detailed the renaissance of Pittsfield, MA, which has adopted a bold economic revitalization strategy centered on the arts and historic preservation involving the restoration of the popular Colonial Theater of a century ago. Pittsfield mayor James Ruberto and the entire Pittsfield community came together behind this bold vision, which received major encouragement a decade ago when the theater was included as part of First Lady and now Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's highly effective Save America's Treasures tour. The Colonial Theater certainly qualified as an American Treasure. The restored theater reopened on August 29 to wide acclaim, and I am proud of all that the mayor and the community have accomplished. This recognition of their efforts is eminently well-deserved, and I believe all of our colleagues in Congress will be interested in Pittsfield's extraordinary achievement. I commend Mayor Ruberto and the people of Pittsfield for a job well done, and I ask that the article be printed in the Record. The article follows. [From The New York Times, Aug. 29, 2006] A City Plots Its Future By Reaching Into the Past (By Hubert B. Herring) Arts-minded visitors to the Berkshire Hills in western Massachusetts may think of Pittsfield as little more than an urban speed bump on the way to Stockbridge, Williamstown and the glories of Tanglewood and Jacob's Pillow. But the city is betting that, with the help of a long- neglected jewel of a theater, it too can make a place for itself on the region's arts map. After a two-year, $22 million restoration, the century-old Colonial Theater will reopen tonight for a year-round season that kicks off with a week's visit by a touring company of ``Rent.'' After that, there are more than 40 other events scheduled for the rest of the year. For years, few outsiders were aware of what lay behind the neo-Classical yellow-brick facade on the Route 7 commercial strip. But inside was a grand Broadway-style theater, a Gilded Age monument designed by J.B. McElfatrick, who designed dozens of New York theaters, including the Theater Republic (now the New Victory) on 42nd Street. From its opening in 1903 to the early 30s, the house, which seated about 1,400, was a regular stop for the likes of Sarah Bernhardt, the Barrymores, Rachmaninoff, Will Rogers and John Philip Sousa. Anna Pavlova danced by, as did the Ziegfeld Follies (100 strong). In 1937, the Colonial was converted into a movie palace, but by 1952 it had gone dark. It was saved from demolition only because a local businessman, George Miller, bought it and housed his paint business inside. The idea of transforming the city into a cultural center received a boost in 1998, when Hillary Rodham Clinton, then the first lady, visited the Colonial as part of a ``Save America's Treasures'' tour. ``Her visit said, `You have a national treasure--it's worth fighting for,' '' said John Bissell, a senior vice president at the Greylock Federal Credit Union and a prominent figure in the move to revitalize Pittsfield. In 2002, the city commissioned a study on the potential economic benefits of restoring the theater. The study, led by Stephen Sheppard, an economics professor at Williams College, forecast $2 million a year in direct economic benefits to Pittsfield and an increase in local property values of at least $23 million. That study ``quantified what we felt instinctively, that the theater would indeed make economic sense,'' said James M. Ruberto, Pittsfield's mayor and a major force behind the renovation. After Mrs. Clinton's visit and the study, of course, came the fund-raising. Ultimately, some $7 million came from donations, the rest from city, state and federal grants and tax credits. ``I have been amazed at the amount of money given to the Colonial,'' said Gary Scarafoni, a retired banker who is now the theater's president. The theater itself was a shambles, said Tom Johnson of Martinez & Johnson, the Washington architects responsible for the restoration. In the half-darkness of the balcony, ``you could see the plaster detailing,'' big pieces of which were starting to fall. Now, the curves and curlicues of the interior ornamentation--which Mr. Johnson describes as eclectic neo- Classical--have been restored to their original glory. But the renovation remains a gamble. David W. Fleming, recently hired as the theater's executive director, said that the Colonial would have an annual overhead of at least $750,000 and expected artists' fees, marketing and stagehand costs collectively to fall in the same range. That means, said Mr. Fleming, who previously ran the Grand Opera House in Wilmington, Del., and the New Brunswick Cultural Center in New Jersey, that the theater will need to fill about 60 percent of its seats if it is to pay half its annual expenses from ticket sales. ``Ideally,'' he said, ``I'd like to see us cover more like 65 percent''--with the rest coming from annual donations. He said he hoped that within a few years, the theater, now reconfigured to seat 810, would be active 200 nights a year, with events that appeal to all tastes and budgets. This season's offerings include low-priced fare like Cirkus Inferno and the Inflatable Theater Company. The theater will have to rely in part on out-of-town audiences. The city's population, roughly 57,000 in 1960, fell steadily after General Electric, which once employed more than 10,000 workers here, gradually shut down most of its operations, paring the workforce to less than 1,000. The population is now 43,000 and is projected to fall considerably further in the next two decades. The city is betting that, if it can transform itself into an arts center, it can reverse that slide. It took a first step in that direction when the highly regarded Barrington Stage Company moved into a renovated 1912 music hall in downtown Pittsfield this month after working for years out of a high school auditorium in Sheffield, in the southwest corner of the state. The company plans spring, summer and fall productions. Mr. Bissell of the credit union argues that people will come, not only to visit but also to live. He cites the rise of the local real estate market since the Colonial restoration project was announced. ``When new businesses come to town,'' he added, ``every single one cites the rebirth of the Colonial as a primary reason why they chose this location.'' Such optimism is not universal. Jonathan Levine, publisher of The Pittsfield Gazette, said that while he was ``thrilled to have a renovated theater,'' he questioned the business projections behind it. ``They've made all these economic development promises,'' Mr. Levine said, ``and there is no way, with their current programming, they can achieve those goals.'' But the Colonial can boast of something that half of every Broadway audience can only dream about. The theater bought an abutting property that will house, in addition to the main entrance, a gigantic ladies' room.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. That is fine.

Mr. KENNEDY. I have it ready to send to the desk.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of myself and our Democratic leader, Senator Reid.

Mr. KENNEDY. I ask unanimous consent the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. KENNEDY. Will the Senator yield for a question? Will the Senator from Virginia just yield for a question?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as suggested by the Senator from Alaska, I am glad to yield without losing my rights. I yield to the Senator from Virginia so he may offer his amendment. As I understand it, there is an agreement to dispose of it. Is it the understanding of the Senator from Virginia that they are going to accept the amendment of the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have no objection, obviously, to--

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have not had a chance to see the amendment of the Senator from Virginia that deals with head injuries. There is also an amendment, I believe, from the Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, on this subject as well. It is a matter of enormous importance and consequence. Hopefully, our committees will take action to deal with it at an appropriate time. Mr. President, next week marks the fifth anniversary of the vicious attack on America by al-Qaida terrorists. Despite the passage of time, Americans still vividly recall with enormous pain and sorrow that dark and somber day. We recall the nearly 3,000 Americans who were killed by al-Qaida terrorists. We recall the brave firefighters and first responders who sacrificed their lives so that others could live. We recall the twin towers crumbling before our eyes, and the Pentagon ablaze beneath a plume of smoke. And we recall the pledge by the administration and all Americans that this type of attack will never, ever occur again. As we approach this anniversary, there is little doubt that the President will, once again, resort to the politics of fear in an effort to convince the American people that the Iraq war is central to the Global War on Terror. Nothing is further from the truth. Scare tactics may have worked in the elections of 2002 and 2004, but this time, the American people know better. The American people know that the war in Iraq was a distraction from the real Global War on Terror and that Iraq had nothing to do with al- Qaida. The American people know that America should have kept its eye on the ball and captured Osama bin Laden--rather than rushing headlong into a war that we did not need to fight. The American people know that the administration should have implemented fully the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission to protect our ports and support our first responders--rather than spending more than $200 million each day on a failed policy in Iraq. The American people know that the war in Iraq has made Americans more hated in the world, created more terrorists, and made it harder to win the real Global War on Terror. The American people know that while we have been bogged down in Iraq, North Korea's nuclear stockpile has quadrupled and Iran has continued its pursuit of nuclear weapons. The American people know that we never should have gone to war in Iraq when we did, and for the false reasons we were given. Most importantly, the American people know that the President's stubborn insistence that we ``stay the course'' does not make victory any more likely and that we need to change our policy in Iraq. At almost every stage of the Bush administration's conduct of the war in Iraq, we have seen major miscalculations and serious mistakes that place our troops at greater risk and jeopardize America's standing in the world. Military leaders and retired generals know it. Middle East experts know it. Our allies know it. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress know it. And most important, the American people know it. They saw it when the Bush team disbanded the Iraqi Army after the fall of Saddam but allowed thousands to walk away with their weapons. They saw it when the Bush administration waited a full year to begin training the new Iraqi security forces. They saw it when the White House failed to see the insurgency spreading like a cancer through Iraq. They saw it when the Bush team failed to see the danger of roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices yet sent our troops on patrol day after day, month after month, year after year. They saw it when the White House failed to provide proper armor for our troops, until Congress finally demanded it. Unfortunately, the administration's repeated failure to see each new threat in Iraq has put our troops and our security in greater peril. Today, once again, the administration refuses to recognize another seismic shift in Iraq--the dangerous prospect that we are drawn into a deadly and divisive civil war. While the President and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are on the campaign trail claiming progress in Iraq, military leaders and experts are urging the White House to heed the disturbing warning signs in Iraq. The President and his cabinet may not believe the fears of civil war are justified, but some of our military leaders do. General Rick Sanchez, former commander of the multi-national forces in Iraq, said as long ago as January 7, ``The country's on the verge of a civil war.'' General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on March 13 that, ``Everything is in place if they want to have a civil war.'' Our Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, is concerned about the threat as well. On March 7, he said, ``The potential is there'' for sectarian violence to become civil war. ``We have opened the Pandora's box and the question is, what is the way forward?'' General Abizaid acknowledged the clear danger when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee on August 3, ``I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped, it is possible that Iraq could move towards civil war.'' General Pace, at the same hearing, agreed about the threat of civil war. He said, ``I believe that we do have the possibility of devolving to a civil war, but that does not have to be a fact.'' Others think that a civil war may have already begun. Former Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi said in March that Iraq is probably in ``an early stage of civil war.'' The British Ambassador to Iraq wrote in August, ``The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy. Our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Chuck Hagel, concurred, saying, in August that ``We, in fact, are in probably a low grade, maybe a very defined, civil war.'' General William Nash, who commanded our troops in Bosnia after that country's civil war ended, stated on March 5, ``We're in a civil war now; it's just that not everybody's joined in.'' He said, ``The failure to understand that the civil war is already taking place, just not necessarily at the maximum level, means that our counter measures are inadequate and therefore dangerous to our long-term interest.'' These leaders see what's really happening in Iraq--not just the White House spin. They know that the polarization of communities along sectarian lines is increasing. In fact, 80 percent of the Iraqi people voted along sectarian lines in the recent elections. Civilian casualties as a result of sectarian violence have skyrocketed. According to the United Nations, 5,800 civilians were killed during May and June of this year and another 5,800 were wounded. An estimated 100 people a day were killed in Baghdad in July. Militia attacks continue unabated. The Shiite militia forces are growing in strength. The widespread infiltration of government security forces by those whose principal loyalty is to their sectarian militias, not the government, is well documented. Interior ministry detention centers have been used to torture inmates just because they are Sunnis. Too often we hear that men wearing Interior ministry uniforms have abducted Sunni men and boys, who later turn up dead. The numbers of civilians displaced or fleeing the violence is increasing as Shiites are forced from Sunni areas and Sunnis from Shiite areas. According to the United Nations, approximately 150,000 Iraqis had been displaced as of June. Despite these trends and the warnings of the experts, President Bush stubbornly continues to deny that civil war is even a real possibility in Iraq. Last December, he said, ``I know some fear the possibility that Iraq could break apart and fall into a civil war. I don't believe these fears are justified.'' The President reiterated the same view on February 28 when he said, ``I don't buy your premise that there's going to be a civil war.'' Again in March, President Bush dismissed the notion, saying, ``They know that they lack the military strength to challenge Iraqi and coalition forces directly--so their only hope is to try and provoke a civil war . . . By their response over the past two weeks, Iraqis have shown the world they want a future of freedom and peace--and they will oppose a violent minority that seeks to take that future away from them by tearing their country apart.'' In August, President Bush still denied that there was a civil war. He said, ``You know, I hear people say, well, civil war this, civil war that The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box.'' Again, on August 21, he said, ``You know, I hear a lot of talk about civil war. I'm concerned about that, of course. And I've talked to a lot of people about it. And what I've found from my talks are that the Iraqis want a unified country and that the Iraqi leadership is determined to thwart the efforts of the extremists and the radicals and al Qaida and that the security forces remain united behind the government.'' For a third time, on August 31, the President denied the possibility of civil war. He said, ``This cruelty and carnage has led some to question whether Iraq has descended into civil war. Our commanders and our diplomats on the ground in Iraq believe that's not the case. They report that only a small number of Iraqis are engaged in sectarian violence, while the overwhelming majority want peace and a normal life in a unified country.'' I just wish the President would take a little time to read this report that was put out by the Department of Defense, on Stability and Security in Iraq. I come back to that in a few moments. Vice President Cheney, too, has long denied the possibility of civil war. On March 19, he stated, ``What we've seen is a serious effort by them to foment civil war, but I don't think they've been successful.'' Secretary Rumsfeld dismisses it as well. In March he said, ``I do not believe they are in a civil war.'' That same month, Secretary Rumsfeld said, ``The terrorists are determined to stoke sectarian tension and are attempting to spark a civil war. But despite the many acts of violence and provocation, the vast majority of Iraqis have shown that they want their country to remain whole and free of ethnic conflict.'' In April, he said, ``I don't think a full-fledged civil war will take hold of the country.'' In May, in an eerie echo of the past, when asked what political and military contingences would be in place if a civil war occurred, Secretary Rumsfeld responded, ``I don't think the scenario that you have described is going to happen, but life's filled with things you don't think are going to happen.'' That's vintage Rumsfeld. ``Stuff happens,'' he said, in response to the chaos that erupted in Baghdad after the first days of the invasion, as though no one could have anticipated such a possibility and it made no sense to waste time planning for such possibilities. That attitude has plagued our forces and our country throughout this misguided war, and it must stop. This, July, as the situation took another turn for the worse, he said, ``There certainly has been an upsurge in sectarian violence; there's no question but that they're trying to incite a civil war. And they have been for a long time, and they have failed so far.'' Secretary Rice also refuses to see the possibility of civil war in Iraq. In February, she said, ``I don't think there is a brewing civil war in Iraq.'' Despite the escalating casualties and increasing sectarian violence, on August 4 she said, ``I don't think Iraq is going to slide into civil war.'' Two days later she repeated the claim and said, ``But the important point here is that Iraqis haven't made a choice for civil war. Iraqis have made a choice for a unified government that can deliver for all Iraqis. And when I say Iraqis, I mean not just their leadership, which clearly has not made a choice for civil war, but their population.'' On the same day she again denied the possibility of civil war, stating, ``It would be really erroneous to say that the Iraqis are somehow making a choice for civil war, or I think even sliding into civil war.'' That's what the Bush team is claiming. They are so focused on the spin war on the campaign trail that they fail to see the real war in Iraq. They are so focused on using the war to win elections here at home that they fail to see the real needs of our troops in Iraq. But this time, the American people aren't buying it. They've heard it all before and are demanding honest assessments and realistic strategies. They know that the President and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld can say it's not a civil war, but that doesn't make it so. They know that our brave men and women in uniform are doing everything they can to bring peace and stability in Iraq. They continue to fight insurgents and terrorists, but are at grave risk of being trapped in the middle of an unwinnable civil war. That is why I am offering this amendment today with the Democratic leader. It requires the administration through the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State to provide an honest and candid assessment of the extent to which Iraq is now in a state of civil war. And even more important, the amendment requires them to say what we are going to do about it. How are we going to advance America's interests in Iraq in a time of civil war? How are we going to protect our troops from getting drawn ever deeper into an endless sectarian conflict? An article in Newsweek magazine on August 14 indicates that although the Bush administration insists that Iraq is a long way from civil war, some inside the White House and the Pentagon have begun some contingency planning. The administration should level with the American people about the real conditions and their planning. And that's the purpose of our amendment today. The amendment requires the Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Secretary of State, to determine every 3 months whether a civil war is taking place and to inform Congress of the plan for our troops in the event of such a war. For each determination, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State will provide their assessment of the levels of sectarian violence such as the level of polarization of communities along sectarian lines and an estimate of civilian casualties as a result of the violence; the number of civilians displaced by the violence; the degree to which Iraqi government forces exercise effective control over major urban areas; the extent to which militias have been mobilized, are providing security, and attacking other Iraqis; and the extent to which the Government of Iraq has obtained a credible commitment from the political parties to disarm and disband the militias and are implementing a credible plan to disarm, demobilize and reintegrate militias into government security forces. If the administration determines that Iraq is not in a civil war, the amendment requires a description of the efforts by our government to avoid civil war in Iraq, a plan to protect our troops in the event of a civil war, and a strategy to ensure that our troops don't take sides. If the determination is that Iraq is in a civil war, the amendment requires the Secretary of Defense to explain the mission of our troops and its duration, his plan to protect our troops, and a strategy to ensure that they don't take sides in a civil war. The amendment is needed to ensure proper planning in the event of civil war. The trends in Iraq are discouraging and certainly point toward civil war. Indeed, the September 1 report prepared by the Department of Defense on Stability and Security in Iraq reaffirms what the American people already understand: the conditions of civil war exist, violence in Iraq is spiraling out of control and staying the course is not a viable option. The Department of Defense report says that concern about civil war within the Iraqi civilian population and among some defense analysts has increased in recent months. Conditions that could lead to civil war exist in Iraq; Rising sectarian strife defines the emerging nature of violence in mid-2006; Sustained ethnic and sectarian violence is the greatest threat to security and stability in Iraq; Sectarian tensions increased over the last three months, demonstrated by the increasing number of executions, kidnappings, attacks on civilians, and internally displaced persons; Civilian casualties increased by approximately 1000 per month since the previous quarter. Assassinations in particular reached new highs in the month of July. The Baghdad Coroner's Office reported 1600 bodies arrived in June and more than 1800 bodies in July, 90 percent of which were assessed to be the result of executions; Sectarian violence is gradually spreading north into Diyala Province and Kirkuk as Sunni, Shiite, and Kurdish groups compete for provincial influencey; Both Shia and Sunni death squads are active in Iraq, and are responsible for the most significant increases in sectarian violence; Militias and small, illegally armed groups operate openly and often with popular support. The threat posed by Shiite illegal armed groups, filling perceived and actual security vacuums, is growing; The security situation is currently at its most complex state since the initiation of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Overall attack levels are higher than the last three months. The average number of weekly attacks increased 15 percent and Iraqi casualties increased by 51 percent compared. These facts are at odds with the administration's statements about civil war. Sectarian divisions are increasing. Mlilitia violence and death squad activity are increasing. The number of Iraqis fleeing the violence is increasing. Yet, the President continues to deny the possibility of civil war. The Vice President, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State continue to deny it. As long as the administration continues to deny the plain truth, America will be behind the curve and unable to adjust to the current realities on the ground and protect our troops. Instead of attacking those who want to change our course, President Bush ought to deal with the hard cold facts. This Defense Department report underscores the fundamental truth that our brave troops are being let down by an administration more interested in political spin than in finding a way to succeed. The administration needs to look at all the facts and honestly address the question of civil war for the sake of our military and the American people. This legislation creates a continuing obligation to ensure that analysis on civil war is done regularly. Unfortunately, this is necessary, because the Congress has forced the administration to step up to the plate on Iraq time and again. The facts in the report say one thing about civil war, but the conclusion about civil war says another. We need an honest assessment from the Secretaries of Defense and State about the conditions on the ground, and that is what the Kennedy-Reid amendment would require. We also need some hard thinking within the administration and a clear plan to protect our troops in a civil war. At every step of the way, this administration has missed the threat to our troops, and Democrats in Congress have had to force the issue. The Democrats in Congress have had to force the issue: We had to require accounting of progress being made to train Iraqi troops so our soldiers can begin to come home. We provided over $1 billion in additional funding for vehicle armor to upgrade the armor on Humvees. We are demanding an updated National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq because the administration has failed to provide one in more than 2 years. We provided more than $175 million for democracy programs in Iraq when the Bush administration's budget did not provide it. We need an honest accounting of the situation so we can adjust accordingly and protect our troops. And we need a plan to protect our troops. The President's stubborn insistence on staying the course impedes success. Our soldiers and the American people deserve more from the administration. Together, the Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State need to set the White House's political agenda aside and directly and thoughtfully address this ominous threat. The administration acts as if the mere discussion of civil war is defeatist. They have it exactly backwards. This amendment is an effort to make sure that the administration confronts and deals with the facts on the ground in Iraq and recognizes the emerging threat before it consumes our troops. This is the only way to achieve any measure of success. For too long, the Bush administration has pursued policies that have failed utterly to carry the day in Iraq and have made America less safe. Unfortunately, this administration has decided that domestic politics require that it stay this failed course through November, and so they have refused to confront the facts in Iraq. Instead, they have chosen political spin, false claims of progress, and baseless attacks on those who focus on the reality of the situation. We must do better. This administration owes it to the American people. Even more importantly, dealing with reality is essential and necessary to protect the lives of our brave soldiers. Iraq's future and the lives of our troops are close to the precipice of a new disaster. The time bomb of civil war is ticking, and our most urgent priority is to defuse it. Our Government should work to reverse the downward spiral. And Iraqi leaders must make essential compromises to strengthen their government, prevent civil war, undermine the insurgency, and deal with the festering problem of militias. For the sake of our men and women in uniform and the stability of Iraq, all Americans are anxious for success, but we need to be realistic enough and smart enough and humble enough to understand that even our best efforts may not prevent a civil war from overtaking events in Iraq. We need to begin planning now for this possibility. That's what this amendment requires. Such planning is not an admission of defeat. It is essential and necessary for protecting the lives of our service men and women in Iraq, who are performing so admirably today under such enormously difficult circumstances. Mr. President, I will not include this whole report in the Record--it is 63 pages--but I will reference it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I appreciate that. During the course of the week, individuals may quote from it, as I did earlier today and may again. I will not ask that it be printed in the Record, but it should be available for anyone concerned about the debate on Iraq. It is an enormously important document and is a ``must read'' for every Member of Congress--certainly for the American people--to have a real understanding of what we are facing in that country. I yield the floor.

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

Mr. KENNEDY. In my remarks, I said we ought to have kept our eye on the ball, which was al-Qaida and the terrorists, and not gone into Iraq. As the President of the United States knows, there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. As the 9/11 Commission reported, there was no connection between Iraq and al-Qaida's attack on this country. So we have a rush to war. Instead of focusing on the problems of al- Qaida, North Korea and Iran, we are now mired in a war in Iraq. The Senator is making my point. We should have focused on the dangers of Iraq. That is a completely different situation than in Korea when the Chinese Communists crossed the river. There was a real issue in terms of our national security. The case has was not made that Iraq posed a threat to our national interest or security. That case was not made in the Senate. And the arguments that were made were inaccurate.

Mr. KENNEDY. All right.

Mr. KENNEDY. I was just asking the Senator how this is different from the Durbin amendment. I note the Senator was in the Chamber earlier. How is this amendment different? I was a cosponsor of his amendment.

Mr. KENNEDY. So you have accepted what was in the Durbin amendment; that is, that shall be spent?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Senator because I was a cosponsor. I did not pay close attention to the presentation, but I was a cosponsor of Senator Durbin's amendment, as I understand, as printed. And listening to the Senator from Virginia, it appears it is virtually identical to what the Senator from Illinois had proposed. I am glad we will have an opportunity to take action on it.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, the pending amendment is the amendment I offered; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is the underlying Kennedy amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk and ask that the underlying amendment be modified as designated.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we are in the final moments of working through a rather important amendment. I thought I would use a few of those moments, until the floor manager returns, to address an issue that we are going to be dealing with within the next 2 days. I am not sure how much time we will have. That is the conference report on pensions which I urge the Senate to accept. I want to quickly review exactly what our pension conference came back with. It requires the companies to fund pension promises, help workers save through automatic enrollment, making the Saver's Credit permanent. This automatic enrollment will ensure that workers will be enrolled in 401(k)s. And this legislation ensures they will be able to get good advice. The advice will be objective. The Saver's Credit is going to be made permanent. That is probably the most that can be done for low-income individuals. The bill helps protect our airline workers' pensions. It give workers timely and accurate information on pension plan finances. It protects workers and businesses in multi-employer pensions. It protects older workers' early retirement benefits from erosion. That is important. It gives workers access to unbiased investment advice. It adopts post-Enron worker pension protections. It penalizes corporate executives who line their pockets when workers' pensions suffer. It provides greater retirement security for widows and former spouses. Pensions are important because when we look at retirement security, it is a three-legged stool. We have Social Security, the bedrock of retirement; private pensions, and then private savings. Private savings are at an all-time low. We will, obviously, maintain the integrity of Social Security, but the other aspect is private pensions. Only 50 percent of workers today have pension coverage at work, and only 21 percent have a defined benefit plan. Pensions are enormously important. We have had approximately $8 billion in pension savings that have been lost in the last 5 years. So if we did not take these steps, the prospects in terms of workers' pensions would have been very threatening. We will make this recommendation at an appropriate time, when the leaders are here. The chairman of our conference is our friend and colleague, Senator Enzi, who has done an extraordinary job during the course of the whole pension conference. As always, he is a man of good judgment and patience. The conference lasted longer than any of us believed was necessary. Nonetheless, we have a product that we are prepared to defend. We had great unanimity in the Senate when we passed the earlier bill 97 to 2. Even those two individuals expressed reservations, and we were able to address their primary concerns. This is not the legislation that I think Senator Enzi or I would have drafted, quite frankly. But it is a solid recommendation. It will make an important difference to millions of workers, particularly those in the multi-employer plans and also single-employer plans. It will make an incredibly important difference to some of the airlines. Quite frankly, I was disappointed that we didn't treat American and Continental Airlines more fairly in the final recommendations. Without moving ahead at this time on the pension legislation, we have the prospects of one of the major airlines dropping their pension program, with more than 150,000 workers losing their pensions. So this is going to be enormously important. We are not going to spend a great deal of time on this, as we are dealing with Defense appropriations, which is incredibly important; and we are going to be dealing with the estate tax proposal, which has been set by the majority leader. But we will, in the next 2 days, deal with this legislation. It is extremely important. If there are Members who want additional information, I am sure Senator Enzi and I will be more than willing to provide it. Americans who have worked hard and played by the rules for a lifetime deserve a secure retirement. They deserve to be able to enjoy their golden years, to spend time with their families and to rest after a lifetime of hard work. We need to be sure that they have the income they need to meet their costs for gasoline, prescription drugs, and other needs of daily living. But what they see each day is corporations such as Enron that callously disregard their workers retirement needs. They see airlines that are going bankrupt, leaving their workers with a fraction of the pensions they thought they had earned. They see other companies facing economic hardship that reward their executives while cutting the pensions of their workers. The Pension Protection Act, which we are considering this week, will help over 100 million Americans. This legislation makes sweeping changes to strengthen guaranteed pensions and to increase workers' ability to build a secure retirement. This legislation is the result of years of work on these complex issues by both the House and the Senate. Last year, we worked closely on the HELP Committee with our chairman, Senator Enzi, and subcommittee chair, Senator DeWine, and its ranking member, Senator Mikulski, to develop a bipartisan way to deal with these issues, and we worked closely as well with Chairman Grassley and Senator Baucus of the Finance Committee. Last fall, the Senate approved our comprehensive legislation by a vote of 97 to 2. For months, the conference committee has struggled to reach agreement with the House, and last month we were finally able to reach a compromise on the key pension elements of the bill, which are reflected in the measures we are considering today. Before I turn to the merits of the Pension Protection Act, I must say that while I support this legislation and the compromise it represents, I cannot support the process used in this conference, particularly the systematic exclusion of Democrats from the negotiations. Republicans allowed only two of the 11 Democratic conferees to participate in the talks, denying the American people the views and contributions that these able legislators could bring to the table. The American people elect us to serve them, and refusing to allow elected officials to do their job is a fundamental attack on our democratic system of government. As we all know, millions of Americans are increasingly concerned about their retirement security, and it is long past time for Congress to act. Many workers cannot save enough toward retirement. The personal savings rate has now fallen below zero because wages are stagnant, but costs are soaring for basic necessities such as gas, housing, health care and education. Social Security is under attack, and private pensions are in trouble too. In the past 5 years, over 700 pension plans have failed, with workers losing approximately $8 billion in pensions they had worked so hard to earn. Many workers today rely solely on their 401(k) accounts as their pensions. But these accounts don't offer real retirement security. Many of those workers do not have any money in their 401(k)s. Those who do are not saving enough. Half of workers close to retirement have less than $61,000 in their accounts. And those who rely on these accounts face the constant risk that their investments will perform poorly. This is why this legislation is needed. Companies need to keep their pension promises to workers. Workers deserve to know the true financial state of the health of their pensions. And companies need to offer benefits that give more workers the ability to earn a secure retirement. A core problem that we have tackled in this bill is the need to strengthen the defined benefit pension system, which today provides secure pensions for nearly 45 million workers and retirees. These pensions grant a known monthly retirement benefit for life, and are insured by the Federal Government. Workers rely on these plans for a secure retirement. They have earned their pensions over a lifetime of hard work, foregoing raises and other benefits to keep them. But as many workers at Bethlehem Steel and United Airlines suddenly discovered, their companies stopped contributing money to these pensions, and the employees paid the price when the pensions collapsed. This includes workers like James Roberts, of Harrisburg, PA, worked for 33 years in a steel plant. When Roberts' pension had to be bailed out by pension guaranty agency at the Federal Department of Labor, his pension was cut by one-third, to only $14,916 a year. Our headlines have been full of stories like these in recent years. The legislation solves this serious problem by requiring companies to put more funds into their pensions and to do so in a fair and predictable way. It also recognizes the power of public disclosure and the urgent need for more effective oversight of pension plans. Under current law, workers receive little financial information about their pensions, and what they do receive is often years out of date. They have earned these pensions, and they deserve to know whether the funds are there to pay them. The Pension Protection Act ensures that workers and retirees receive up-to-date information each year about the status of their pensions. By opening up the books of pension funds, they will be able to monitor the true health of their retirement. The bill also provides incentives to keep pensions financially healthy by tying executive compensation to pension health. Executives should not be able to feather their own retirement nests, while workers lose their nest eggs. The bill penalizes executives who put company funds into their own retirement trusts, when the pensions of rank and file workers are underfunded. We also need to recognize the growing role of defined contribution pension plans in our retirement system. Over 40 percent of workers participate in such plans today, and for many of them it is their only pension plan. Our legislation encourages them to save more under these plans by automatically enrolling them in these pensions and automatically increasing the amount they can save. Automatic enrollment can drastically increase the number of workers who start saving for retirement--it would immediately help up to 5.9 million American workers whose companies already offer pensions but they are not participating. Workers in the lowest income brackets benefit the most. One study projects that automatic enrollment could more than double the percent of lower income workers who are building a retirement when their employer offers a pension from only 42 percent to over 90 percent. The Saver's Credit provides critical incentives to help hard-working Americans contribute to their retirement plans and helps over 5 million workers each year. This legislation makes that credit permanent and indexes it so this incentive will continue to be meaningful for workers into the future. Also, as employees assume greater responsibility for pension investment choices, they need the best information possible about their choices. The Pension Protection Act encourages companies to provide nonbiased investment advice to their employees so they can maximize their retirement savings. Our bill also helps to improve the portability of pension savings. By making it easier for workers to move retirement savings from one type of pension to another when they change jobs, we encourage workers to keep these savings for retirement instead of spending them. In addition, the bill addresses the needs of nearly 10 million workers and retirees who receive pensions through multiemployer plans. These are the workers who clean our office buildings and hotel rooms, sell us our groceries, build our homes and schools and highways, and deliver goods across the country. Many of them are in industries where they move from job to job and would not be able to earn any pension at all without a multiemployer plan, since their employers, particularly small businesses, could not afford to offer a pension on their own. The majority of these pensions are in strong financial shape. But the recent economic downturn and the weak stock market have put some of them in financial difficulties similar to those facing single-employer pensions. We owe it to these employees to protect their pensions now, instead of acting only when they are about to fail. Under this legislation, employers and employees must work together and agree on a plan to restore these pensions to financial health. Employers would be protected from unforeseen payment increases and new excise taxes, which could cost many workers their jobs. The bill also addresses the special needs of workers who help to keep America safe. We improve retirement security for public safety workers by expanding options to pay for retiree health care and long-term care. We also allow reserve and national guard members to draw on their retirement savings without penalty when called to active duty, and we give them an opportunity to replace these savings when they return to civilian life. The pension crisis in the airline industry also deserves our immediate attention. Our airlines have faced unprecedented challenges since 9/11. Natural disasters have reduced travel. The industry is suffering from record-high fuel prices. These costs are driving companies into bankruptcy, putting the retirement of hundreds of thousands of workers and retirees at risk. Workers at United Airlines and U.S. Airways saw their pensions slashed when their companies filed for bankruptcy and then turned over their pension plans to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. We need to help hundreds of thousands of other workers avoid the same fate. The bill provides a way for these airlines to keep their pensions, by offering companies a specialized payment program and a transition period to adjust to the new rules. Hardworking people like Sean Reardon, a mechanic with Delta Airlines in Boston, deserve to keep their pensions, as do thousands of other workers in Massachusetts. Our legislation also addresses new types of pensions, like ``hybrid'' pensions, which play a growing role in our retirement system. These pensions provide a guaranteed pension, and the benefits are attractive to younger workers and to others, such as parents caring for children, who move in and out of the workforce. Older workers, however, can lose out when their companies switch to these plans because they lose a large portion of the benefits they were promised. Some companies have been taking advantage of the conversion process to eliminate early retirement benefits that workers have already earned. This legislation gives companies clear guidance about the future legal status of these plans, but allows workers who have been harmed in the past to continue to pursue their rights. And it contains clear protections against such ``wearaway'' or erosion of older workers' benefits. The bill also makes these pensions more portable, so that they better serve a mobile workforce. As we learned from the Enron, WorldCom and other corporate scandals, employees forced to invest in company stock are at huge risk. Despite all the publicity, many workers continue to overinvest in company stock, jeopardizing their retirement security because their job and their retirement depend on the fate of their company. The bill protects them by preventing employers from overloading 401(k) plans with company stock. It also warns employees when they place too much of their retirement funds in one investment. The legislation also includes important provisions from the Women's Pension Protection Act that Senator Snowe and I introduced. Retirement security is essential for all Americans, but we often fail to meet the needs of women on this basic issue. Women live longer than men, but they continue to earn far less in wages over their lifetimes. They are also much less likely to earn a pension. These differences translate into seriously inadequate retirement income for vast numbers of women. According to the most recent data, only 22 percent of women age 65 and over are receiving private pension income, and for those who do, half of them are receiving less than $4,500 a year compared to $9,600 for men. Minority women are in even more desperate straits--only 21 percent of African-American women and 9 percent of Hispanic women receive a pension. These disparities are a major reason why nearly one in five elderly single women lives in poverty. Our legislation gives them greater retirement security. Widows will receive more generous survivor benefits and divorced women will have greater ability to receive a share of their former husband's pension after a divorce. These are long overdue improvements in the private pension system, so that retirement savings programs will be more responsive to the realities of women's lives and careers. Employees and their families rightly expect Congress to protect their hard-earned pensions. This legislation is a major start toward meeting this basic challenge in our 21st century society. I urge my colleagues to support the Pension Protection Act. I suggest absence of a quorum.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, just to take a moment of the Senate's time, first, I am very grateful to the floor managers, Senator Stevens and Senator Inouye, and particularly Senator Roberts for the opportunity to work with him on a matter which I think is of underlying importance. We have worked out language which would require an updated national intelligence estimate on Iraq. The last one that was prepared was 2 years ago. The assessment would address whether Iraq is succeeding in creating a stable and unity government, and whether it will address the Sunnis' concerns, the prospect for Iraq's ethnic, religious, and tribal divisions reconciliation, the progress for controlling severe sectarian violence that could lead to civil war, whether Iraq has a credible plan to disarm and demobilize and reintegrate the militias, and whether the Government is working to obtain a political commitment from the political parties to ban militias. For the sake of our men and women in Iraq and for the sake of our Nation, we need this kind of assessment from the intelligence community so we can adjust our policy. John Adams, the great leader from Massachusetts, said: Facts are stubborn things. We should have an update on the facts as our intelligence agencies see them and have them available to the decisionmakers and to the administration. I very much appreciate the cooperation of Senator Roberts and others in working out language which I think carries through the purpose of the initial amendment and I think will be enormously valuable and helpful to us in charting the course for our Nation in the future.

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