John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. As in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that the injunction of secrecy be removed from the following treaty transmitted to the Senate on September 20, 2007, by the President of the United States: Treaty with the United Kingdom Concerning Defense Trade Cooperation, Treaty Document No. 110-7. I further ask that the treaty be considered as having been read the first time, that it be referred with accompanying papers to the Committee on Foreign Relations and ordered to be printed; and that the President's message be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, too many young people, from all walks of life, are either struggling to pay for college or flatout can't afford it. Those who aren't able to incur such steep costs are not only losing out on a degree, but setting themselves up to face a lifetime of lost opportunities, as study after study shows college graduates are the most attractive candidates for the fastest growing and best paying jobs of tomorrow. Greater college access and financial assistance is critical to making the American dream a reality for all. This bill strengthens educational resources for low-income students, giving every child the chance to succeed. It will mark the largest increase in student aid since the Montgomery GI bill and ensures that college is within the reach of children all over the country. Today, families in New England with students in a community college spend 17 percent of their annual income to cover the cost of college for 1 year, while families nationally spend 13 percent. According to an analysis by the Massachusetts Board of Higher Education released last year, more than two thirds of families in Massachusetts last year still required approximately $6,300 beyond financial aid to afford a college education. Faced with such a hardship, many Massachusetts students drop out, saying the costs are too steep. Those who do complete their degrees are often saddled with thousands of dollars in student loans-- which can take years, often decades, to pay off. The conference report cuts roughly $20 billion from lender subsidies and uses the funds to increase aid to college students and reduce the interest rates they must pay on their loans. It halves interest rates on subsidized student loans, from 6.8 percent to 3.4 percent, over 4 years and increases the Pell grant by $1,090 increase in the maximum Pell grant award over 5 years. It also allows for a flexible repayment option and loan forgiveness after 10 years for certain public-sector employees. I am also proud that the conference report included language to fund key Massachusetts Upward Bound programs. Upward Bound provides fundamental support and college preparation for low-income students and has a strong record of increasing the rate at which low-income students graduate from institutions of higher learning. Once the President signs this legislation into law, 187 new and existing Upward Bound programs that scored above a 70 in the most recent grant competition will be funded from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2011. As a result, Upward Bound services will be provided for an additional 12,000 students. I want to congratulate all of the new and refunded Upward Bound programs in my State--Holyoke Community College, North Shore Community College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Suffolk University and Wheelock College. Thank you for providing these necessary services to Massachusetts students and I urge you to keep up the good work. This legislation is absolutely vital to securing the opportunity of higher education for all and making our country more competitive. I thank Senator Kennedy for his hard work and vision and I wholeheartedly support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform members that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship will hold a hearing entitled ``Expanding Opportunities for Women Entrepreneurs: The Future of Women's Small Business Programs,'' on Thursday, September 20, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my privilege to join in saying a few words about my senior colleague, the Senator from Massachusetts. The special words that have been spoken about Ted Kennedy are obviously more than appropriate. But let me say, if I may, it is interesting that when we take a measure of Ted Kennedy's work here, which is an unparalleled record of achievement, and we look at the public record, that public record is actually full of comparisons to the greatest Senators who have ever served in the United States Senate or even some of the greatest who have served in Washington. The Boston Globe wrote of our senior Senator: In actual measurable impact on the lives of tens of millions of working families, the elderly, the needy, Ted belongs in the same sentence with Franklin Roosevelt. Time magazine said: Ted Kennedy has amassed a titanic record of legislation affecting the lives of virtually every man, woman, and child in the country. And in his comprehensive book just a couple of years ago, Adam Clymer wrote that Ted Kennedy is a lawmaker of skill, experience, and purpose rarely surpassed since 1789. He has been compared to Henry Clay for his skill as a legislator and to Lyndon Johnson for his efforts in creating a more egalitarian, more inclusive America that leaves no one behind. Mr. President, 15,000 votes is a remarkable number. No one knows that more than the Senator sitting in front of me, the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, who is the only other member of that exclusive club. He knows, as we all know, that 15,000 is not just a statistic representing those votes. It represents and encapsulates countless legislative battles in the trenches, in the committee rooms, in offices, tough negotiations, thankless committee hearings, inspired ideas, setbacks and, to a greater degree than almost any other lawmaker alive, laws that improve the lives of everyday Americans. From his maiden speech in the Senate demanding an end to the filibuster of the original Civil Rights Act, there has not been a significant policy accomplishment in Washington over four decades that has not borne his fingerprints and benefited from his legislative skill and leadership. His is the record of progressive politics in our era. In all of the great fights that call us to stand up and be counted, from the minimum wage year in and year out, to Robert Bork and Sam Alito, Ted Kennedy did not just hear the call, he led the charge. You can run down the list. The rights of the disabled who for far too long were left in the shadows or left to fend for themselves, Ted Kennedy wrote every single landmark piece of legislation that today prohibits discrimination against those with a disability. AIDS--when a whole lot of politicians were even afraid to say the word, Ted Kennedy passed a bill providing emergency relief to the 13 cities hardest hit by the AIDS epidemic. Mr. President, 300,000 young people today have jobs every single summer because of Ted Kennedy. Guaranteed access to health coverage for 25 million Americans who move from one job to another or who have a preexisting medical condition--they wouldn't have gotten that coverage without Ted Kennedy. Without Ted Kennedy, there wouldn't have been bilingual education in the United States for the 5 million students who today have a brighter future because they are learning English in our schools. Without Ted Kennedy, we wouldn't have lowered the voting age to 18 and ended the hypocrisy that 18-year-olds were old enough to die for our country in Vietnam but not old enough to vote for the leadership. Without Ted Kennedy, we wouldn't be the world's leader in cancer research and prevention. Without Ted Kennedy, we wouldn't have had title IX, which opened the doors of competition and opportunity for a generation of women athletes all across our country. The list goes on, and I am not going to go through the whole list. But ever since he entered this body at the age of 30, he has stood up again and again to be counted in support of his beliefs. He stood up to be counted. He stood up to lead again and again. He has already secured his place as one of the great legislators in the history of our country. And then after casting that 15,000th vote before we went away, he celebrated by doing the same thing that made him a legend in the first place. He rolled up his sleeves and he went back to work. That is why a lot of us look forward to seeing these next years with him and watch as he continues to help write the history of the Senate and the history of our progressive politics and the history of our country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last night, the Senate voted to reauthorize the vitally important State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP. The legislation, approved by a vote of 68 to 31, demonstrates the Democratic majority's commitment to expanding this successful health insurance program and made a loud and clear statement regarding the importance of children's health as a national priority. During debate on this bill, I offered an amendment to add $15 billion in additional funding to cover over a million additional low-income children. Unfortunately this amendment was not adopted, however I am grateful to my colleagues for voting to include as part of H.R 976 the Small Business Children's Health Education Act, which I introduced in June with Senators Snowe and Levin. This amendment directs the Federal Government to make a concerted effort to reach out to small business owners and employees to enroll eligible children in SCHIP. In February of 2007, the Urban Institute reported that among those eligible for the State Children's Health Insurance Program, children whose families are self-employed or who work for small business concerns are far less likely to be enrolled. Specifically, one out of every four eligible children with parents who work for a small business or who are self employed are not enrolled. This statistic compares with just one out of every 10 eligible children whose parents work for a large firm. We need to do a better job of informing and educating America's small business owners and employees of the options that may be available for covering uninsured children. To that effect, the Small Business Children's Health Education Act creates an intergovernmental task force, consisting of the Administrator of the Small Business Administration, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Treasury, to conduct a campaign to enroll kids of small business employees who are eligible for SCHIP and Medicaid but are not currently enrolled. To educate America's small businesses on the availability of SCHIP and Medicaid, the task force is authorized to make use of the Small Business Administration's business partners, including the Service Corps of Retired Executives, the Small Business Development Centers, Certified Development Companies, and Women's Business Centers, and is authorized to enter into memoranda of understanding with chambers of commerce across the country. Additionally, the Small Business Administration is directed to post SCHIP and Medicaid eligibility criteria and enrollment information on its website, and to report back to the Senate and House Committees on Small Business regarding the status and successes of the task force's efforts to enroll eligible kids. I would like to thank Finance Committee Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Grassley for their work to include this amendment in the SCHIP Reauthorization Act. I look forward to working with our colleagues in the House of Representatives to send the President a bill that goes a long way toward what should be our unified goal: to cover every child in America.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent from the votes related to the reauthorization of FISA. I strongly support the critical efforts to protect our national security and, as I have repeatedly stated in the past, I want the Federal Government to do all that it can to aggressively pursue al-Qaida and other terrorist organizations. I believe the legislation developed by Senators Rockefeller and Levin achieves these goals without targeting American citizens without court authorization. I believe the approach by Senators Rockefeller and Levin will give the intelligence community all the tools it needs to protect our national security while maintaining the independence of the FISA Court. This legislation will give the intelligence community the tools they need to collect foreign-to- foreign intelligence communications. It will compel compliance from communications providers. It will allow the intelligence community to collect all foreign intelligence information. I hope my colleagues support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this month marks the 2-year anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and still thousands of small business owners in New Orleans and across the gulf coast are still struggling to keep their doors open, keep their employees working, and get the economy back on its feet. Since the days immediately following the storm, I have worked with Senators Snowe, Landrieu, and Vitter to produce a comprehensive package to reform the SBA's Disaster Assistance program. Nearly 2 years of bipartisan negotiations have produced a piece of legislation that has broad bipartisan support as well as the support of the administration. Today that legislation will pass the Senate, and is one step closer to authorizing the tools needed by the SBA to respond to large scale disasters. This bill includes directives for the SBA to create a private disaster loan program, to allow for lenders to issue guaranteed disaster loans in the aftermath of a catastrophic disaster. To ensure that these loans are borrower-friendly, we provide authorization for appropriations so that the agency can subsidize the interest rates. In addition, the administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans. The bill also includes language directing SBA to create an expedited disaster assistance loan program to provide businesses with short-term loans so that they may keep their doors open until they receive alternative forms of assistance. The days immediately following a disaster are crucial for business owners--statistics show that once they close their doors, they likely will not open them again. These short-term will be available following a disaster of catastrophic proportions so that processing delays such as the ones experienced after the 2005 gulf coast storms will not result in widespread business failure. A presidential declaration of catastrophic national disaster will allow the Administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In the event of a large-scale disaster, businesses located far from the physical reach of the disaster can be affected by the magnitude of a localized destruction. We saw this when the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 affected businesses from coast to coast, and we saw it again with the 2005 gulf coast hurricanes. Should another catastrophic disaster strike, the President should have the authority to provide businesses across the country with access to the same low-interest economic injury loans available to businesses within the declared disaster area. Nonprofit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to non-profit entities, including religious organizations. Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program, which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if required. The bill also provides for small business development centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage small business development centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived. So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's Disaster Loan Program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The administration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration. Though it took many, many months to pass this much-needed legislation, I am confident that our extensive negotiations have produced a piece of legislation that, when enacted, will provide the tools that the administrator requires to swiftly and effectively respond to future disasters, both large and small. I thank Ranking Member Snowe as well as Senators Landrieu, and Vitter for their extraordinary efforts over the past 2 years. I also thank Senators Bond and Coburn for their ability to see the need for this important legislation and to work through disagreements in order to get this bill passed. I look forward to working with the House of Representatives to address any differences that remain between the House and Senate versions of the bill so that we can put in place a more comprehensive disaster response program at the SBA as quickly as possible.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as elected representatives, I believe we must hold ourselves to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a simple one. I want to take this opportunity to express my appreciation to Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Lieberman and Chairman Feinstein for their work to keep that faith by increasing the ethical standards of the Congress in the legislation that the Senate is considering today. While not perfect, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 will expand public disclosure of lobbyist activities, increase the transparency of the congressional earmarking process, strengthen the existing gift bans and ``cooling-off periods'' for Members of Congress and their staff, and prohibit Congress from attempting to influence employment decisions in exchange for political access. I very much appreciate the assistance of Majority Leader Reid, Chairman Lieberman, and Senator Salazar in including a provision in this legislation that will prohibit Members of Congress who are convicted of serious ethics crimes such as bribery and fraud from receiving Federal pensions. This provision, based on my amendment to the Senate Ethics bill in January, which in turn was based on the Congressional Pension Accountability Act which I introduced with Senator Salazar, will go a long way toward rebuilding the trust of the American people. Those who abuse the public trust shouldn't be allowed to exploit the Federal retirement system at taxpayer expense. That is simply unacceptable and this legislation will finally change that inequity in the law. We all remember just last year, when former Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham received the longest prison sentence ever imposed on a former Member of Congress. His crime? He collected approximately $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings and other bribes including a Rolls Royce from defense contractors. This disgraceful conduct a crime which lies beyond comprehension for honest, hardworking American taxpayers has earned him 8 years and 4 months in a Federal prison and has required him to pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties and $1.85 million in ill-gotten gains. Unfortunately, the American taxpayer will continue to pay his Federal pension--a pension worth approximately $40,000 per year. Thanks to this legislation, no longer will taxpayers' hard-earned dollars be used to pay for the pensions of Members of Congress who are convicted of serious ethics abuses in the future. I believe this legislation will significantly improve our Government by changing the way business is done and helping to ensure that Congress once again responds to the needs of our people, not special interests.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this will be very brief. Senator Snowe and I have joined together, as the chair and ranking member of the Small Business Committee, to put together a task force effort between the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Secretary of Labor, Secretary of the Treasury, and the Small Business Administrator to coordinate and assist in trying to effectively reach out to small businesses to help them be aware of how they can take advantage of the Children's Health Insurance Program. This has been cleared on both sides. It doesn't cost any additional funds whatsoever. It simply is an effort to try to coordinate and implement this as effectively as possible. I ask for its adoption. I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me begin first of all by thanking the distinguished chairman of the finance committee on which I have the pleasure of serving, whose leadership has been critical in bringing this bill to the floor. He and Senator Grassley, Senator Rockefeller, and Senator Hatch deserve the thanks of children all across America, of all those advocacy groups fighting for children's health care, and certainly of our colleagues who care about it and have been fighting for it for a long time. They have shown real leadership in bringing about an important compromise by fashioning a bill that was reported out of committee with bipartisan support. We all understand how difficult that can be, sometimes. Sometimes the negotiations in our committee are out of balance because of the membership of the committee and you may have a different feeling when you finally get to the floor. So I applaud the Senator from Montana. I will say up front, I know that if he had his druthers, he would vote for this on the floor of the Senate now. I also know when you are the chairman and you fashion a compromise in your committee, you have to stick with your compromises. Everybody here understands how that works. So I recognize that this is an amendment that is difficult for him in the context of this overall bill. But I ask my colleagues to think about this amendment outside of the inside game of the Senate. I ask my colleagues to think about this amendment outside of the parliamentary agreements that have to be made in order to get something out of the committee and actually get it to the floor so we can all consider it. But I also ask my colleagues to remember that when it gets to the floor, we have a chance to vote as Senators, all of us--not as members of the committee. Certainly, the vast majority of the Senate is not bound by what happened in a committee. We are bound by our responsibility, each and every one of us, to our constituents in our States and to our beliefs about what is best for the country. I believe, first of all, the legislation that the Senator from Montana and the Senator from Iowa, Senator Grassley, have brought to the floor is important for the country. I think everybody agrees on that. I think this bill is going to pass with a pretty significant vote, ultimately, at its current $35 billion level. But as we debate the future of health for our children, I think we have a responsibility to think about it above and beyond the compromising process of the Senate. I believe we have to think about it in macro policy terms and also--I know the word gets bandied around here on the floor, and it doesn't always have a lot of meaning anymore--in ``moral'' terms. We have a lot of difficulty sometimes translating what is moral in most people's eyes into legislation. But the fact is I heard Senators on both sides of the aisle, and particularly some of those most responsible for helping to negotiate this on the other side of the aisle--I have heard them say we have a moral imperative to take care of children's health care. I have heard them say we ought to be covering all children. Of course, we ought to try to cover all children, but isn't it a shame that we can't seem to do that because it costs too much. The Senator from Mississippi came to the floor and spoke about this. He talked about how some want an increase of $50 billion or more and suggested that I approach this purely with an attitude where I say let's decide how many kids we ought to cover, and it does not matter what it costs, let's go pay for it. Well, that is a little bit of a misinterpretation of what I have actually said about it. I have said we ought to decide if we think it is worthwhile to cover all children, and then see if we can pay for it. I did not say pay for it no matter what. See if we can pay for it, but at least decide what your priority is. If your priority is to cover children which is an important moral imperative, it has a value to our society, it makes a difference to the lives of children, to the lives of the community, the cost of hospitals, the cost of health care, the ability to learn, the ability to grow up and be a full citizen, you measure those and you come to the conclusion hey, this is a good idea, we ought to do this for all kids. Then, you have an obligation to begin to weigh where the money comes from and what the choices are with respect to what you spend money on. The Senator from Mississippi suggested we have to worry about the cost of the program and who pays for it. Yep, we do, I say to my friend. And he is a good friend, the Senator from Mississippi. We do have to worry about it. But let's measure what people appear to be worried about. Let's measure about why children's health care is a priority. First, I want to do the ``why.'' What we do here with respect to children is not a Democratic priority or Republican priority. It ought to be the priority of every single Senator. I know most of the Senators here have families, have children, and are deeply concerned about kids and understand these issues. The real face of this debate does not belong to Senator Baucus or Senator Grassley or Senator Rockefeller or Senator Hatch or anyone else who is here arguing about this. The real face of this debate belongs to young kids all across our country who suffer enormous debits on a lifetime basis because they do not have health care. The face of this is somebody like 9-year-old Alexsiana Lewis and her mother, Dedra, who come from Springfield, MA. Senator Kennedy-- incidentally, I honor Senator Kennedy's work in this, as we all ought to, because it was his visionary leadership that helped to create the S-CHIP program in 1997. He has constantly been working to build bridges to bring people together to try to sustain and expand the program ever since. Senator Kennedy and I went to the Children's Hospital in Boston, a famous hospital where kids come from all over our country. And the stories of curing and caring that are exhibited in that hospital on a daily basis are just extraordinary. Well, we met there Alexsiana Lewis and her mother. Alexsiana, 9 years old, was losing her vision due to a very rare eye disease. Her mother, Dedra, had lost her health insurance, like millions of Americans. We have about 45 to 47 million Americans who have no health care at all right now; 9 million of them are children. Dedra lost her health insurance. Why did she lose her health insurance? She lost her health insurance because she cut back on the hours she was working in order to be able to take care of her child who had this rare disease. And here is what she said at that meeting with Senator Kennedy and myself. She said: ``If I did not have Mass Health right now''--that is the Massachusetts health program we have in place now funded by S-CHIP-- ``my daughter would be blind.'' So my question to my colleagues in the Senate is very simple: Somewhere in your States all across this country there is another Alexsiana Lewis, or there is another Dedra who is cutting back on her job. There are going to be about 5.7 million children who do not get any coverage when we finish passing this legislation. Now, my question is, is that the choice of the Senate measured against the other choices that we could make? Is it our choice that it is OK for an Alexsiana to go blind? Is it OK in your State for some child to have a chronic ailment who will not get the early intervention, the early care, and as a result will probably wind up with a lifetime impairment that will require that child to have special needs education for the rest of their life? I went out to the State of Washington a couple of years ago. I had recently introduced my Kids First Health Care Plan. And we had about 1,200 people show up. The chief pediatrician for the State of Washington came to this event in Seattle. She stood up and told the story of a 12-year-old child who was disruptive in the classroom. Ultimately, they kicked the child out of the classroom because the child was disruptive. They thought the child was just acting out. Ultimately, that child finally, for the first time, got to a doctor and they found that the child was suffering, not acting out. The child had a chronic infection which spread to the eardrum, and this chronic infection was creating such pain that the child was acting out due to the pain. Now, at the final moment where they diagnosed what was wrong, they found out that child indeed would have a hearing impairment for the rest of that child's life. No health insurance and acting out in class leads to teacher responding and the child finally gets diagnosed as hearing impairment and will require special needs education. What is the rationale? What is the rationale for saying all we can afford is $35 billion over five years, at a moment when people across this country are losing faith in the ability of Washington to be responsible and make responsible choices on their behalf? I think it is important that we answer that question properly. And I will tell you, when I look at some of the choices we have, it is pretty hard to answer how we are answering it properly. Let me give a few examples to my colleagues. This is a choice the Senate is going to make. If the alternative minimum tax relief is extended, as everybody expects it will be, tax cuts for those earning over $1 million a year will cost $43 billion in 2007 alone. Think about that. We are saying we cannot afford to cover children to the tune of an additional $15 billion over 5 years, but we can give $43 billion of tax cuts next year to people earning more than $1 million a year. That is obscene. It is ridiculous. It has absolutely no basis in economic argument, and it certainly has no basis in any kind of moral or decent argument. If you were simply to restore the tax cut to the level before 2001, to only taxable income above $1 million, you would have $44 billion and you could insure children. You would be affecting 0.21 percent, of all taxpayers with positive tax liability in the United States. That is one choice. Here is another choice Congress seems to be content to make. Currently, major integrated oil and gas companies are eligible for the domestic manufacturing deduction, which reduces their corporate tax rate. In other words, we know fossil fuel is contributing to global warming, but we nevertheless are willing to continue our own dependency on it and give a tax break that encourages people to be able to do what they are going to do anyway because the marketplace is showing that the price of energy is such. These are some of the most profitable companies in the world. But oh, boy, give them a tax break instead. There is absolutely no valid reason whatsoever that the most profitable oil companies in the world ought to be receiving a subsidy, a deduction, at this time when they are reaping record profits. But guess what, the Finance Committee tried to repeal it and the rest of the Senate did not agree. This deduction cost $9.4 billion over the next 10 years, but we do not have enough money for children. We didn't close a loophole in our Tax Code for the poor fuel economy--we actually reward gas-guzzling SUV manufacturers. They get $13 billion worth of tax breaks to produce the most gas guzzling cars on the road, the worst fuel efficiency of any car, and we are subsidizing that over children. I do not get it. I think most Americans, if they had a list of the things that the U.S. Congress gives to big business over children, would laugh at the language they hear when they hear people say: Oh, we have to cover children. There is a real value to covering all of these children. Here is another one. Most American families do not get this one. If you are a company, you can defer paying U.S. taxes on any foreign income. So you can be an American company and just keep your income drawing offshore, and you do not pay any tax. It can accrue year to year. And repeal of this provision is about $53 billion over 10 years. Also, it is a huge incentive for companies to take their, you know, subsidiaries and other companies offshore and just grow their profits offshore at the expense of American jobs. There is a long list of choices, similar choices: $12 billion a month in Iraq, going into the sixth year of the war in Iraq; now we are in the fifth year of the war, now a policy that everyone in the world understands is not working. I believe there is a better proposal. Now, again, I say $35 billion, of course, is better than nothing. But it is incredible to me that we are in this position where the administration is talking about vetoing $35 billion, and we are not willing to do what is necessary to really get the job done. Let me say that I am pleased that there is a provision that I authored with Senator Smith and Senators Kennedy and Domenici to ensure that there is mental health parity in this State Children's Health Insurance Program. And parity for mental health treatment is a very significant and very much needed improvement in SCHIP. Instead of discriminating against mental health, which is effectively what we are doing today, we can offer services that actually improve children's performance in school, that keeps them out of trouble in the juvenile justice system, and helps them lead better lives, filled with a lot more opportunity and promise. But $35 billion over 5 years, let me ask colleagues to measure that. Why have we decided to spend $35 billion at all? Why do we have a program called the Children's Health Insurance Program? If it is worth spending $35 billion, doesn't the same rationale apply to the rest of the children who do not have health insurance? Where is the big hand of God coming down and saying: You all over here, you get health insurance; and you over here, you do not because we think it is more important that millionaires get a tax cut. We think it is more important that gas-guzzling vehicles get a tax break, and we think it is more important that oil companies with the biggest profits in the country get their money. That is the choice. That is what is happening. We have some colleagues who just do not want to bend. That is why this agreement had to be reached. I understand the Senator from Iowa--I am not blaming Senator Grassley from Iowa. I respect what he has tried to do. He held the line to get the $35 billion. I respect what Senator Baucus had to do because we are struggling to get votes. If you don't get over 60 votes, you can't do something. But I think some of those folks who are reluctant to sort of embrace reality ought to step back and question this. Let me come to another point. I have told my colleagues how we pay for this. First of all, the $35 billion is paid for with a cigarette tax. The cigarette tax I am in favor of, but we know, unfortunately, it is also regressive in a certain way, though hopefully it deters people from smoking. But a whole bunch of poor folks and folks moving to the middle class or folks in the middle class are stuck with their habit and smoke, and they are going to pay a lot of that tax. We would love it if it stopped them from smoking, but we all know that is not going to happen automatically. So here we are looking at how else could you get more kids covered. What is important about my amendment is that it covers the kids who are eligible for Medicaid. It has a more efficient avoidance of the topic we have heard debated, the crowd-out. People are talking about not encouraging people who currently have private insurance to drop the private insurance to get covered by the State insurance. We obviously don't want that to happen. The fact is that my amendment targets the coverage toward those at 200 percent of poverty or below. So you are mostly targeting Medicaid-eligible children. It is astonishing to me that those are the kids most in need of it, and they are still left out if we don't pass this amendment. We are trying to get the poorest of the poor. We are trying to get the kids on Medicaid. We still don't fully cover the kids on Medicaid with the $35 billion, even though, obviously, it is an improvement. I will vote for the improvement, and I will vote for the bill. But I still believe we ought to be doing more. I just went to Fall River, MA, the other day to visit a bunch of workers. We have 900 workers there who have been laid off permanently, let go from a plant, Quaker Fabric, that closed. It closed, incidentally, on a weekend's notice, despite the fact that we have a law about plant closings. They are supposed to let workers know ahead of time what is happening. I went to visit with these people. The biggest single question on their minds was: What am I going to do about my health care? How am I going to cover my kids? What am I going to do? I met people who worked there for 35 years, 27 years, 25 years, all at the same place. They were loyal to the plant, and their 2-week vacation started on a Friday. On Monday, they got a call and they were told: The plant is closing. Sorry. That is it. What is more important--covering their children or making sure people who earn more than $1 million a year get $43 billion worth of tax cuts? Astonishingly, the President of the United States is threatening to veto new money for this program. Even at $35 billion, he is threatening that. That means the choice the President wants to offer is either Congress can do not enough or do nothing at all. I don't think that is the appropriate choice. The President has also initiated a disinformation campaign--I guess disinformation campaigns are not new, but it is another disinformation campaign--to denounce this bill as a larger Democratic strategy or plot to somehow massively federalize medicine. I understand the President offered to veto it before he had even read it. Confronted with a bipartisan compromise to extend health coverage to half of the 9 million American children without insurance today, the President apparently only sees some sort of a leftwing conspiracy to try to federalize health insurance. It is almost laughable. I don't think anybody really believes that is what is about to go on, but it sure is one of those scary phrases that create a knee-jerk response in certain sectors of the body politic. The SCHIP program is, like Medicaid before it, a Federal-State partnership. It is not a Federal program; it is a Federal-State partnership. Ironically, it happens to use private providers as the principal people involved to provide the service. So it is a Federal- State-private sector partnership. It is very hard to understand how the specter of ``federalism'' somehow can get in the way of that. Another misleading statement we have heard is that SCHIP is a Democratic Trojan horse for socialized medicine. I have to laugh at that. I was here when we did the 1994 debate on health care. I did not sign on to the plan that was offered by the White House in 1994. There were a number of problems. It doesn't matter what they were. I didn't sign on. I worked hard with Senator Bill Bradley, with Senator John Chafee, Senator Bob Dole, and others. We had a compromise that, in fact, if it had been adopted, it had a back-end mandate with the private sector being tapped to provide additional health insurance to Americans. I believe we could have passed it, but there wasn't the mood for a compromise at that point in time. Had it passed 4 years ago, we would have been at about 99 percent of Americans covered by health insurance. That was the opportunity which was missed. But one thing I learned, you ain't going to see socialized, Government-run health care in America probably during our lifetimes. It is just not in the makeup. There are plenty of ways to put health insurance out there that are more affordable. I offered one of those ways in 2004. That is as viable and as urgent today and, frankly, as compelling today as an approach where you can reduce the cost of all premiums, take catastrophic health insurance off the backs of businesses and Americans, and lower the cost of health insurance, provide unbelievable streamlining of the delivery of the system, and let every American choose where they want to go. It is far more efficient than what we have today. This red herring, phony debate, straw debate is inappropriate to the cause of children. It doesn't do justice to any of us. It also is ironic that some of the most significant efforts to expand the Children's Health Insurance Program have come from Republican Governors. The President's former budget director, Mitch Daniels, the current Governor of Indiana, has recently expanded eligibility for children's health insurance to 300 percent of the Federal poverty level or roughly $60,000 for a family of four. Something is seriously wrong when as good a numbers-cruncher as Mitch Daniels and as tough a budget critic, as we all know, can go out to Indiana, which is a pretty centrist conservative State, and wind up expanding health insurance for kids up to 300 percent of poverty. There is a real disconnect in this debate. The President likes to claim the new program is somehow going to push families like those from private insurance to government health care. But Governor Daniels and a lot of Governors like him understand that is not the case. With the cost of private insurance for that same family approaching $12,000 a year, the real choice for most American families today is either SCHIP or no health care at all because of the current rise in costs. In fact, the National Governors Association this past week sent yet another bipartisan letter to the President stating their support for the bipartisan reauthorization bill that provides increased funding for SCHIP now moving through the Senate. Finally, SCHIP is not Government run. The vast majority of SCHIP and of Medicaid enrollees receive their coverage through private insurance plans working under contract with the States to administer benefits. So, far from socialized medicine, it represents the kind of commonsense public-private partnership that ought to be a model for greater health care reform. A lot of families I have met all across the country are scared they will not have adequate health care for their kids. The President's response to that was--I think about a week ago--Well, they have health care. They can just go to the emergency room. I don't know how many Senators have been to emergency rooms lately. First, they are all overcrowded. I know that at Mass General, which is one of the best hospitals in America, in Boston, sometimes it is so crowded it takes hours to get people processed except for the most traumatic who come in. You have people on gurneys in the halls of hospitals all across America, different waiting periods. It is extraordinary what has happened. The degree to which emergency rooms have become the primary care facility for Americans is shocking. Hospitalized children--this is important--without health insurance are twice as likely to die from their injuries as those with coverage. Uninsured kids are only half as likely to receive any medical care in a given year. We all go to schools and talk to teachers, and we go into communities. We have townhalls, and we listen to voters. I can't tell my colleagues how many times I have heard a teacher tell me how difficult it is to teach a whole class of kids, which is usually an overcrowded class of kids, where many of those children don't have health care. We know that kids who have health care do 68 percent better in school. Here we are, a country that is struggling with an education system that is not keeping up with competitors around the world. We don't graduate enough scientists or engineers, researchers, and so forth. One of the things it is related to, in terms of the choices children have in their long-term education, is whether they get health care and screening early. Someone who has health care is more likely to get an early diagnosis of whatever the problem is. If you are a child and you have an irregular heartbeat or a hole in your heart or you have some other disorder, early diabetes onset or even autistic tendencies, if you don't get to a doctor and the parent doesn't see those indices and isn't able to understand them for what they might be and get somewhere to get the care, the odds are that child is going to wind up costing everybody a lot more, not to mention what is going to happen to that child's life. I hope my colleagues will take a hard look at this. I hope the President will reconsider his decision to veto it. I know Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller have negotiated the best bipartisan package they could. Again, I commend them for doing so. But here on the floor of the Senate, we have an opportunity to work our will as a Senate. We have an opportunity to make a different statement. I believe we ought to be investing at least $50 billion. The Senate passed in its budget--this is in the budget today--$50 billion for children's health care. The only reason it has come to the floor at $35 billion is because some people refuse to let it come out of committee or take any shape other than that at this moment in time. The best way to finance that $15 billion is to do what is fair and to make one of those choices we are called on to make. There are countless choices in this budget. We have 27,000 pages or so--I think more than that now--of Tax Code that fill volumes. Most of those pages do not apply to average Americans. Most of those pages apply to those who have been able to lobby Washington, to those who have been able to bring their cause to this city. These are children. Children's lobbies reflect a lot of different organizations, but it seems to me we have an opportunity to enroll the lowest income of uninsured children by increasing the bonus payments available to States so they meet or surpass their targets. We don't mandate them to do so. We leave the discretion up to the States. They have wide discretion with the waivers they have today as to how they administer the programs. They have proven themselves very capable and very creative in doing so. I hope, as a matter of priority, we make a bipartisan down payment of no less than $50 billion toward health care coverage for all our children. The only excuse for not spending more is saying: Oh, we cannot afford that. When somebody says we cannot afford that, then you have to look at what we are choosing to afford. That is the real test of the balance of what we care about and of where we are willing to put our votes. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I will not object. I would just like to ask if I might be recognized first to simply make a unanimous consent request on a modification and send it to the desk. I will not speak.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment No. 2602 be modified, as sent to the desk, and that be the pending amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and thank my friend.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in the underlying bill, we have made a decision to insure some 3.3 million kids who are among the poorest in the country. But we still have about 5.7 million kids who will not get covered. So you have 9 million kids without coverage, and this bill will seek to insure 3.3 million. What my amendment seeks to do is recognize that if you have a rationale that says it is worthwhile to insure all those kids, we also ought to be insuring the additional 1 million kids who are Medicaid eligible who will not be insured under this bill. So my amendment seeks to do what we said we would do in the original budget resolution, where we allocated $50 billion to insure children. It pays for it by not granting to those earning more than $1 million a year a continuation of their tax cut next year. That is how you pay for it. Mr. President, .18 percent of all Americans will be affected in an effort to guarantee that the poorest of the poor children in America-- Medicaid eligible--will be eligible for health care coverage.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2602.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I are introducing the TSA Acquisition Reform Act of 2007 to repeal exemptions from Federal contracting laws that were granted to the Transportation Security Administration, TSA, after 9/11 in the rush to secure airports. Representative Carney has introduced identical legislation in the House and I look forward to working with him to improve contracting at TSA. TSA is one of the few Federal agencies and the only agency within the Department of Homeland Security that is not subject to the same procurement rules that every other Federal agency, including the Department of Defense, must abide. Specifically, it is exempt from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, FAR, which covers every major procurement law and requires Federal agencies to provide for an open and competitive bidding process and submit contract information to the Federal Procurement Data System. TSA's exemption from the FAR was never meant to be permanent, and this amendment would bring the agency in line with normal Federal contracting rules. TSA has a record of mismanaging contracts and wasting taxpayer dollars, and has been the subject of several DOT and DHS Inspector General reports. For instance, in 2002, TSA, despite using FAR guidelines, issued a federally prohibited cost-plus-a-percentage contract to Boeing to install explosive detection systems in airports. In September 2004, the IG found that the initial $508 million contract ballooned to $1.2 billion, that Boeing was paid $49 million in excess profit, received $82 million to cover $39 million in costs, and ultimately received a 210 percent return on its investment. In 2005, the Washington Post reported on an audit by the Defense Contract Audit Agency which showed that a contract issued to the Pearson government solutions firm to recruit Federal passenger screeners increased in cost from $104 million to $741 million in 9 months in part because TSA changed the scope of the contract to require Pearson to use posh hotels, including the Waldorf Astoria, as recruitment centers. TSA disputes this account, but cannot provide any paperwork to back it up. The article quoted Deputy DHS Secretary Michael Jackson as saying, ``Honestly, I have no memory of it.'' In 2004, the when the GAO wanted to review 21 TSA contracts, it literally had to send staff to rummage through boxes of files to retrieve information that would otherwise have been in the Federal Procurement Data System. As Chairman of the Small Business Committee, I am particular concerned about TSA's inability to meet its small business contracting goals. I am pleased that the 2007 DHS Appropriations bill applied the Small Business Act to TSA, but small business owners won't truly benefit because TSA is still exempt from basic contracting rules under the FAR that helps them compete for Federal contracts. Although TSA's small business contracting goal is 23 percent annually, only 10.7 percent of its contracts went to small businesses in 2005. Analysis conducted by my staff suggest that the true figure is closer to 6 percent because many of the large corporations that contract with TSA set up subsidiaries that technically qualify as small businesses but are in fact part of a larger corporation. I am concerned about this and I know that my colleague, Senator Snowe, the ranking member of the Small Business Committee, is concerned as well. There is another important reason to require TSA to follow the FAR. DHS, which encompasses 22 different agencies, is trying to create a unified procurement system and a common culture within the department. The Comptroller General noted last year before the House Homeland Security Committee that ``the various acquisition organizations within DHS are still operating in a disparate manner, with oversight of acquisition activities left primarily up to each individual component.'' How can DHS create a common contracting system when the agency that spends the most money on contracts within the department is exempt from the department's own rules? It would be wrong to suggest that exemption from FAR is the main reason that TSA has mismanaged contracts. Its acquisition office was understaffed after 9/11, and there was a rush to meet Congressional deadlines that led to sloppy oversight. I understand that TSA has spent millions to improve its contracting office and I commend it for doing so. However, it is far from clear that TSA has a functional procurement system. A 2006 GAO review of the ongoing Boeing contract suggests that poor contracting oversight continues to plague TSA. The report states that ``TSA officials provided no evidence that they are reviewing required contractor submitted performance data,'' and that they ``do not document their activities because there are no TSA policies and procedures requiring them to do so. I know all Members would agree that this is a problem. Unfortunately, lack of transparency and accountability are common themes in TSA's procurement history. Former DHS IG Kent Ervin has said that ``TSA is rapidly becoming the poster child for contracting dysfunction.'' Citizens Against Government Waste, which has endorsed this amendment, said in a letter to my office that ``TSA has a record of wasteful spending and mismanagement in its acquisition process and a continued exemption will only lead to more abuse.'' I think we would be remiss in our oversight responsibilities if we did not repeal these exemptions. TSA should not be policing itself. I am not alone with these concerns. Just ask the Professional Services Council, the Nation's largest trade association representing Government contractors. In a letter to sent to my office yesterday, the PSC stated that my amendment will ``increase competition, expand opportunities for small businesses, provide greater accountability and transparency in their procurement process.'' This judgment comes from the association representing the contractors that do business with TSA. Last year, TSA sent a letter to my office saying that it follows the FAR as a general rule but that its exemption ``benefits taxpayers.'' Amazingly, TSA criticized the FAR's requirement that Federal agencies consider all interested companies in the bidding process, saying that ``negatively impacts the limited resources of the government.'' It is hard to see how taxpayers benefit when an agency has the ability to opt out of the competitive bidding process at its choosing. The Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force, none of these agencies can simply decide to opt out of the FAR unless they meet the criteria for an exemption which is already provided for under the law. This legislation is simple: apply the same rules to TSA that every other agency has to follow. There is no legitimate reason to maintain these exemptions--not for efficiency, not for national security. If it is good enough for the Department of Defense, it is good enough for TSA. I look forward to working with Senator Snowe and Representative Carney to pass this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on July 26, I introduced critical legislation to stem the rising tide of dogfighting in our country. Dogfighting is one of society's most barbaric and inhumane activities. The dogs are mistreated, starved and conditioned for aggression, and then allowed to literally destroy one another in the ring. As we have read in the recent indictment of Atlanta Falcon's quarterback Michael Vick on dogfighting charges, poor-performing dogs are tortured, maimed, and killed. This illegal and despicable activity has no place in a civilized society. However, dogfighting has expanded its hold in recent years. The Humane Society of the United States estimates that 40,000 people in the United States are involved in professional dogfighting, and fight purses reach as high as $100,000. As many as 100,000 additional people are involved in ``streetfighting,'' informal dogfighting that often involves young people in gangs. This legislation would place a Federal ban on all aspects of dogfighting activity from owning to transporting to training dogs for the purpose of fighting, to participating as a spectator at dogfighting ventures. I hope this legislation will end the practice of dogfighting in our country, once and for all. This Congress's authority to make the lucrative commercial aspects of dogfighting a crime cannot be doubted. Just 2 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Gonzales v. Raich that Congress's authority under the commerce clause extends to local activities that are an integral component of interstate criminal activities. This bill is well within that standard. As demonstrated in the Vick indictment and by the many law enforcement records, animal welfare reports, and economic studies that will be entered into the Record on this bill the--dogfighting industry has become nationwide in scope, and Congress is well within its authority to address both the nationwide framework and localized branches that are a critical part of that extensive criminal venture. We are dealing with a criminal industry has developed into a multifaceted, national and international commercial market that depends heavily upon illegal trafficking between States. Dogfighting is an inherently commercial and economic activity that has a substantial effect upon interstate commerce. Dogfighting is an interconnected, nationwide, lucrative commercial industry. In addition to high-stakes gambling, dogfighters exchange tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars annually on the purchase and sale of fighting dogs. Dog fighters also make top dollar by breeding or selling ``stud'' privileges for fighting dogs, and can make top dollar by breeding dogs that have proven themselves in the ring by killing multiple other dogs. This extensive commercial venture also requires trafficking in the specialized equipment necessary to train and house fighting dogs. There are even underground transport services to courier these dogs from one match to the next--assuming they survive. Dog fighters also make a living handling and training fighting dogs for well-funded sponsors--as we saw in the Vick indictment. It could not be clearer that the overwhelming majority of dog fights--if not every single dog fight--are truly economic endeavors that involve some element of interstate commerce, such as animals, equipment, breeders, or spectators having traveled across State lines. Many dog fights are conducted for the purposes of illegal gambling, and some gambling on the sidelines is almost always present at these fights. Dogfighting also burdens interstate commerce by increasing the risk of injury or disease to both animals and humans, including dog bites, rabies, and heartworms. What's more, small, localized dogfighting ventures, when viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact upon interstate commerce. As the allegations I mentioned earlier against Michael Vick and his codefendants demonstrate, large amounts of money are at stake in dogfighting matches, and winners often take home all or some portion of entry fees paid by other participants. The individual dogs used in fighting can have a commercial value of between hundreds of dollars and tens of thousands of dollars per animal. All of the activities associated with dogfighting, including gambling and other illegal activities, equipment outlays, breeding expenses, and promotion costs are not only inherently commercial in nature but transcend State boundaries. By way of example, there are dozens of Federal criminal prohibitions on the local creation, possession, and sale of narcotics and narcotic- making equipment. Congress recognized that the illicit drug industry had become nationwide in scope, and chose to exercise its constitutional power to address the localized branches of that extensive criminal venture. Likewise, this bill responds to the proliferation of dog fighting into a nationwide criminal network of local ventures, which Congress is similarly authorized to address. Just look at the Endangered Species Act, which broadly restricts the killing, taking, or breeding of certain wild animals, in order to effectuate Congress's goal of preventing the extinction of imperiled species. The ESA has been upheld as a valid exercise of Congress's authority by every federal appeals court to address the issue, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to upset those judgments. The effects of dogfighting on interstate commerce are neither indirect, remote, nor attenuated. Regulation of dogfighting is necessary to prevent and eliminate burdens upon interstate commerce. In addition, the regulation of dogfighting is an essential part of a larger regulatory scheme, the Animal Welfare Act, which mandates the humane treatment of animals in our society.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obstruction for obstruction's sake is not in the best traditions of this great institution. It is the worst kind of cynical political calculation. I think all of us on our side would join in voting to protect the right of the minority to be able to filibuster. We all understand that what goes around comes around, and the time may come when we again may be in the minority. We Democrats don't want to use the nuclear option. We are not even talking about it. We want to pass bills. We want to pass bills that are supported by a majority of people in the Senate, including Republicans, and certainly supported by the majority of Americans. I say to my Republican colleagues that there is a better way to do business. We can work together and actually do something positive for the American people. All of us know this is a uniquely challenging moment for this country. We face new threats and hurdles no generation has faced before. We ought to be working together to solve those problems. The only chance this Senate has to make a real contribution to history is to make a bipartisan contribution. That is the only way the Senate meets its own expectations. Some of the great legislative accomplishments in recent memory came under mixed Government, when both sides of the aisle came together. In 1981, Ronald Reagan saw that Social Security was in danger of going bankrupt and placed a call to the Democratic speaker of the House, Tip O'Neill. They realized that at the end of the day, nobody would solve it if they didn't. So they got together and took the politics out of a tough and unpopular vote. The deal they struck kept Social Security afloat. Neither man could have done it without the other. Neither party could have done it without the other. We all know the limits of a politics of division, of partisan sectarianism. A politics of division can rush our country into war, but it cannot sustain our trust or the war itself. A politics of division has no answer for 12 million undocumented workers in our houses, fields, and factories. It has no answer for 45 million Americans with no health insurance, no answer for icecaps that are melting or a failed policy in Iraq. The politics of division is bad for America--from the Parkinson's patient to the undocumented immigrant to the soldier in Iraq. Nobody is benefiting from Republican obstructionism. It is also bad for the Senate. This Senate has been known as the greatest deliberative body in the world. But there is nothing deliberative about partisan sabotage. There is nothing deliberative about blind obstructionism. The ongoing debate we have here is about much more than Senate procedure. At its core is a debate, really, about where we are headed in our relationship with each other, Republicans and Democrats. All of us go home and hear from our constituents about how they have lost faith in Washington. All of us want to do right by the people who elected us and try to make life better for the American people. Any Senator who has been here for a period of time has watched the decline of the quality of the exchange on both sides of the aisle in this institution. I have seen colleagues stand up against it. I remember when Senator Gordon Smith, in the middle a painful debate on Iraq, said: My soul cries out for something more dignified. I think a lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle are concerned for the Senate. Voters want a debate over ideas, not a war of words; a choice of direction, not a clash of cloture votes. The stalemate we have now is not what the Senate is renowned for. This is called, as I said, the greatest deliberative body in the world, a place where people on both sides can find common ground and get good things done for other people. Ultimately, we are accountable to the American people--accountable for false promises, accountable for failure to address issues we promised to address, whether it is energy independence or military families who lose their benefits. We are accountable. Mr. President, a filibuster to stop all progress, then claim Democrats aren't doing anything, is a failed strategy. It is a failure because it doesn't put the American people first. I believe the American people will hold a party of obstruction accountable. I hope that will change. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, last November was one of those truly rare moments in the short history of our country and our democracy. Any political science student taking a freshman lecture, of course, will hear how incredibly hard it is to remove entrenched congressional majorities. They know the statistics about how hard it is to defeat incumbents around here. It doesn't happen that often. But sometimes, the American people rise up in one moment, as they did last November, and they make history. Just six times in our 230-year history has one party lost both Houses of Congress, and 2006 was the first time the Republican Party failed to win a single House, Senate, or gubernatorial office previously held by the Democrats. We Democrats have been in that predicament. In 1994, Democrats woke up to a landslide defeat some people thought would never come. It wasn't always easy, it wasn't always collegial, but we listened and we learned. Together, we reached across the aisle to balance the budget and reform welfare. We wrestled with why we had lost, and we wrestled with what we had to do in order to come together--not just as a party but as a country. Evidently, some people still haven't wrestled with what happened last November 7. Last November, Americans were appropriately angry. They saw our young men and women in uniform paying the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq for a failed policy that was stuck on autopilot. They saw the number of Americans without health insurance skyrocket to 45 million, with more hard-working Americans joining them every day. They saw record-high oil prices and global climate change--a reality denied and deferred and no serious national effort to address these issues. They saw staggering corruption and no accountability for the way the people's House had been turned into a refuge for the special interests. Americans saw a politics and a party that was broken, and they rejected the stubbornness, cynicism, corruption, and failed policies that made ``Washington'' a dirty word. They voted for a change. President Bush seemed to get the message the day after the 2006 election when he said to America: The message yesterday was clear. The American people want their leaders in Washington to set aside partisan differences, conduct ourselves in an ethical manner, and work together to address the challenges facing our Nation. The President said he got the message, but the question has to be asked: What have Republicans done since then? Where are they 6 months after their worst electoral defeat in 50 years? What happened to the President's postelection statements when measured against the President's actions and those of the Republican minority in the Senate? Those actions tell a very different story. Before the dust had settled, before defeated Republicans had even cleaned out their offices, this President and his remaining allies in Congress have made a calculation, on issue after issue, that they would just set out to stop everything from happening and then they would turn around and they would ask: Why is nothing happening under the Democrats? This is a pure political calculation. It is wrong for the country, and I respectfully would suggest, ultimately, it will be wrong for the party. They would rather spend their time attacking Harry Reid than attacking the Nation's problems. Delay is no longer just a former Republican leader; it has become a Republican way of life. We have been busy debating progress in Iraq around here and measuring benchmarks. I can't help but think as we talk about measuring benchmarks that pretty soon the Iraqi Government is going to wonder whether the Republican caucus is going to meet any of its benchmarks or any of the country's benchmarks. For 6 months now, the Democratic majority has worked in good faith to deliver on our promises to the American people. Because of the Democratic majority, the minimum wage earner in America now makes 70 cents an hour more than they did under a Republican Congress--and soon they will be making $2 more. The longest streak without a raise in the minimum wage in the history of the minimum wage has ended but not before 4 months of Republican obstruction cost each minimum wage earner in America around $500 in earnings. We passed legislation to make college more affordable and cut interest rates in half for millions of Americans with student loans. We stood up to powerful special interests and raised the fuel efficiency of our automobiles by 10 miles per gallon. Twenty years had passed since Washington raised the fuel standards, but Democrats took on the special interests and got it passed. We passed funding for stem cell research. We passed the 9/11 Commission recommendations. We passed ethics and lobbying reforms. Just yesterday, we passed legislation that will fix many of the shortfalls in our care for injured troops and veterans, and, over yet another White House veto threat, we also passed a 3.5-percent raise for members of the military. Most importantly, we passed legislation demanding that the President face reality and begin redeploying troops from Iraq. Regrettably, there is, on almost every one of these issues, today as I stand here a gap between how many of those policies that are aimed to help everyday Americans, which enjoy the majority support of the Senate, and how many have actually been signed into law. Why? One simple reason: The President and his allies in Congress have decided to use every means at their disposal just to slow it down and block it, to stand for a policy of obstruction and obstruction and obstruction, not accomplishment for the American people. They have vetoed and filibustered and killed bills in conference. They have wasted days and days with procedural motions and delays that have nothing more to do in their purpose than to waste time and squander the trust and patience of the American people and, ultimately, to hope to be able to blame it on the Democrats. Just look at what they have blocked. They vetoed a Senate bill demanding a new strategy in Iraq. They vetoed a stem cell research bill, science that could prove crucial to cures for 100 million Americans with Alzheimer's or Parkinson's or diabetes or other diseases. Now, another veto is threatened on children's health care--of all things, children's health care--a veto threat on a bill the President hasn't even read, because he was worried about the price tag. Well, we are talking about our children's health, and the bill offered just $7 billion each year for uninsured children, while we spend 1\1/2\ times that amount every month in Iraq. Those are just the bills which made it to the President's desk. Senate Republicans blocked a vote on a bill to allow the Federal Government to negotiate lower prescription drug prices for 43 million Americans on Medicare. Republicans are blocking the passage of a bill that would provide crucial funding for the intelligence community. They are blocking ethics bills that would mark the most sweeping ethics reform since Watergate. They don't have the votes to stop it, so they are pulling a procedural maneuver and refusing to appoint conferees in order to hammer out the final details of the bill. The Republicans are now setting records for filibusters and obstruction. The Senate record for filibusters is being set already, and it is only halfway through this term. To paraphrase Winston Churchill: Never, in the field of Senate legislation, was so much progress blocked for so many by so few. Actually, they have made history, I suppose, because thanks to the Senate Republicans, L.A. is no longer the center of gridlock in America--it is right here. On issue after issue, the Republicans have chosen to filibuster--and to do so just 2 short years after they declared the filibuster, as their then-leader, Bill Frist, said in late 2004, ``nothing less than the tyranny of the minority.'' After expressing outrage at the mere hint of a Democratic filibuster last session, the Republicans have suddenly become the principled champions of so-called minority rights in the Senate, but minority rights apply to legitimate filibusters for legitimate issues, not a policy of obstruction to stop everything that comes along. After threatening the so-called ``nuclear option'' when Democrats stood up to defend the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they have introduced a filibuster to stop everyday business in the Senate. Almost everything the majority leader tries to do here now requires us having a cloture vote in order to prevent a filibuster. In fact, the rubberstamp Republicans of the previous 7 years have now become the roadblock Republicans. The party of Abraham Lincoln has become the party of redtape--vetoes, filibusters--any means necessary to deny the will of the majority of the Senate and the vast majority of the American people. If you don't believe me, listen to what the minority whip, Senator Trent Lott, told a reporter just this April. He said: The strategy of being obstructionists can work or fail, and so far, it is working for us-- The ``us'' being the Republican Party and the minority in the Senate. Well, I think the Senator is looking at it the wrong way. The question isn't, Is it working for Republicans, is it working for Democrats? The question is, Is it working for the American people? Is it working for the millions of low-income children whose health care funding the President has threatened to veto? Is it making us safer when you block the funding for the intelligence agencies? Is this obstructionist strategy working for the 12 million Americans forced to live in the shadows of American life while our borders stay broken? Is it working for the 554 soldiers who have died in Iraq since Republicans first blocked a measure to redeploy troops last February? Instead of the Senate's highest shared principles of consensus and bipartisan accomplishment, the Republicans have chosen the lowest common denominator--a zero sum game in which they are willing to gamble the American people's loss for Republican gain. The Republican strategy seems to be to slash the tires of the Senate and then wonder why we are still stuck on the side of the road and blame somebody else for that problem. Let me be clear what I am criticizing here. I support the right of the minority to filibuster. In fact, I have done so myself. Every Senator in this body has that right. I support that right. But when filibustering not for the principle of the issue at hand but for the generic, broad strategy of stopping what happens here so you can blame the party in charge for not being able to finish the work, that is unacceptable. The rights of the minority in the Senate ought to be protected, but they also ought to be used responsibly too. Do I have a problem with time?

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent for a few more minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support the fiscal year 2008 Department of Homeland Security, DHS, appropriations bill. The underlying legislation provides $37.5 billion--$2.3 billion more than the President requested--to help DHS defend against what the recently declassified National Intelligence Estimate, NIE, concluded will be ``a persistent and evolving terrorist threat over the next three years.'' The President, however, has threatened to veto this bill and hold up essential security funding because its funding level is slightly above his budget request. After years of underfunding homeland security, cutting taxes for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class, and failing to veto one pork-laden spending bill passed by the GOP Congress, it is hard to take the President's sudden conversion to fiscal responsibility seriously. He has long since proven his appetite for spending beyond our means and has lost the support of his fiscally conservative base. In crafting this and other spending bills, the Democratically- controlled Congress is meeting our needs while adhering to pay-as-you- go rules which will help stem the record deficits of the last 6 years. This critical legislation funds important programs to protect the border, improve aviation security, fund and train first responders, and provide disaster relief to the States, and it does it without busting the budget. I am especially pleased that the bill provides $1 billion above the President's budget request for State and local grant programs such as the Urban Area Security Initiative and Port Security Grant Program. This will ensure that Massachusetts and other strategically important States receive an increase in counterterrorism funding in 2008. I remained concerned, however, that DHS still does not award grants solely according to risk. Given the sobering conclusions of the NIE, we cannot afford to misallocate homeland security grants. I thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for accepting an amendment that I offered which requires the Government Accountability Office to review the methodology the department uses to rank States and cities according to risk. Congress needs to know this information so that it can make informed decisions regarding the Department's grant policies. I also want to thank Chairman Byrd and Senator Cochran for accepting my amendment to create a pilot program to test automated document authentication technology at ports of entry. The technology DHS uses to authenticate foreign travel documents is unfortunately no better now than on 9/11. It simply checks personal information against databases which we know are not always accurate. In keeping with the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, this pilot program will hopefully compel DHS to deploy technology that can detect security features and distinguish between real and fraudulent travel documents. DHS is spending millions to implement the US-VISIT and Western Hemisphere Initiative but has yet to test technology that can authenticate the documentation that visitors will be required to provide under those programs. It is imperative that DHS conduct this pilot program as soon as possible and improve its ability to detect fraudulent travel documents. The Senate also adopted a bipartisan amendment to add $3 billion in emergency spending to help DHS hire more Border Patrol agents, detention beds, and monitoring equipment along the border which we all agree it needs. This amendment, while important, is not a substitute for finishing work on comprehensive immigration reform legislation, and I hope that Congress will revisit this important issue. Keeping 12 million undocumented workers in the shadows is neither good for our economy or our security. Mr. President, H.R. 2368 provides for the first time adequate funding for agencies and programs within DHS. It would be irresponsible and reckless for the President to veto this bill, and I hope he reconsiders his position.