John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will help those who are valiantly serving their country and the families that they leave behind. The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. Currently, there are over 132,000 military personnel serving in Iraq and more are on the way. There are approximately 22,100 U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are reservists and have been called to activity duty, frequently for multiple tours. Often they own, or are employed, by a small business and their activation results in hardship for the business. Small businesses with less than 100 employees employ about 18 percent of all reservists who hold civilian jobs. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up and to replace them with temporary employees. I applaud the businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same. Earlier today, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee held a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or are employed by a small business. We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended consequences the callup of reservists is having on small businesses. According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long callups have made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian soldiers. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees and the self-employed to help with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees when they are called to active duty. This legislation also provides an additional tax credit to help offset the cost of hiring temporary employees to fill vacancies left by the servicemembers. Many reservists who own their own business return from duty to find that their business is floundering. These tax credits will help reservists who own their own businesses to hire temporary employees for the duration of their tour as well as to assist small businesses deal with the impact of having an essential employee called up for active duty. In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military pay subject to Federal income tax withholding. In addition, with respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of the employer making the payment and allows the differential military pay to be treated as compensation. This bill also attempts to mitigate the financial strains placed on our military families while the family member is deployed. To help ease some of this burden, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would increase the standard deduction for active duty military personnel by $1,000 for 2007 and 2008. In addition, this legislation would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayers to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income tax credit (EITC). Without this provision some military families would no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is currently not taxable. Last Congress, Senator Smith and I introduced the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act, which we have incorporated into the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act. This provision provides tax relief for the death gratuity payment that is given to families that have lost a loved one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred saving accounts that help with saving for retirement, health care, or the costs of education. Our legislation would allow military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions. Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their valor by taking care of those they leave behind. Helping ease the tax burden on the death gratuity will enable military families to save more for retirement, education, and health care by allowing them to put the payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate tax-free. These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and their families at home as well as abroad. The National Military Family Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and The Military Coalition (a consortium of veterans and military organizations representing more than 5.5 million members plus their families and survivors) support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007. This legislation will help those who are valiantly serving their country and the families that they leave behind. The best definition of patriotism is keeping faith with those who wear the uniform of our country. That means giving our troops the resources they need to keep them safe while they are protecting us. And it means supporting our troops at home as well as abroad. Currently, there are over 132,000 military personnel serving in Iraq and more are on the way. There are approximately 22,100 U.S. servicemembers in Afghanistan. Many of these men and women are reservists and have been called to activity duty, frequently for multiple tours. Often they own, or are employed, by a small business and their activation results in hardship for the business. Small businesses with less than 100 employees employ about 18 percent of all reservists who hold civilian jobs. Most large businesses have the resources to provide supplemental income to reservist employees called up and to replace them with temporary employees. I applaud the businesses that have been able to pay supplemental income to their reservists, but it is not easy for small businesses to do the same. Earlier today, the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Committee held a hearing on veterans' small business issues. A majority of our veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan are Reserve and National Guard members--35 percent of whom are either self-employed or own or are employed by a small business. We heard some disturbing statistics about the impact and unintended consequences the callup of reservists is having on small businesses. According to a January 2007 survey conducted by Workforce Management, 54 percent of the businesses surveyed responded that they would not hire a citizen soldier if they knew that they could be called up for an indeterminate amount of time. I am concerned that long callups have made it hard for small businesses to be supportive of civilian soldiers. The Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 provides a tax credit to small businesses with fewer than 100 employees and the self-employed to help with the cost of paying the salary of their reservist employees when they are called to active duty. This legislation also provides an additional tax credit to help offset the cost of hiring temporary employees to fill vacancies left by the servicemembers. Many reservists who own their own business return from duty to find that their business is floundering. These tax credits will help reservists who own their own businesses to hire temporary employees for the duration of their tour as well as to assist small businesses deal with the impact of having an essential employee called up for active duty. In addition to helping small businesses, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief of 2007 addresses concerns related to differential military pay, income tax withholding, and retirement plan participation. These provisions will make it easier for employers who would like to pay their employees supplemental income, above their military pay, and make pension contributions. Our legislation would make differential military pay subject to Federal income tax withholding. In addition, with respect to the retirement plan rules, the bill provides that a person receiving differential military pay would be treated as an employee of the employer making the payment and allows the differential military pay to be treated as compensation. This bill also attempts to mitigate the financial strains placed on our military families while the family member is deployed. To help ease some of this burden, the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act of 2007 would increase the standard deduction for active duty military personnel by $1,000 for 2007 and 2008. In addition, this legislation would make permanent the existing provision which allows taxpayers to include combat pay as earned income for purposes of the earned income tax credit (EITC). Without this provision some military families would no longer be eligible to receive the EITC because combat pay is currently not taxable. Last Congress, Senator Smith and I introduced the Fallen Heroes Family Savings Act, which we have incorporated into the Active Duty Military Tax Relief Act. This provision provides tax relief for the death gratuity payment that is given to families that have lost a loved one in combat. This payment is currently $100,000. Our current tax laws do not allow the recipients of this payment to use it to make contributions to tax-preferred saving accounts that help with saving for retirement, health care, or the costs of education. Our legislation would allow military death gratuities to be contributed to certain tax-preferred accounts. These contributions would be treated as qualified rollovers. The contribution limits of these accounts will not be applied to these contributions. Our service men and women need to know that we are honoring their valor by taking care of those they leave behind. Helping ease the tax burden on the death gratuity will enable military families to save more for retirement, education, and health care by allowing them to put the payment in an account in which the earnings will accumulate tax-free. These changes to our tax laws will help our military families with some of their financial burdens. It cannot repay the sacrifices they have made for us, but it is a small way we can support our troops and their families at home as well as abroad. The National Military Family Association, the Reserve Officers Association, and The Military Coalition (a consortium of veterans and military organizations representing more than 5.5 million members plus their families and survivors) support this legislation. I ask unanimous consent that the text of this legislation be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the chairman would like to inform the members of the committee that the committee will hold a hearing entitled ``Assessing Federal Small Business Assistance Programs for Veterans and Reservists,'' on Wednesday, January 31, 2007, at 10 a.m. in Russell 428A.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my colleague Senator Kennedy for his courtesy in helping to make it possible for me to have some time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last November, the American people sent an unmistakable and incredibly important message to their elected leaders. They didn't ask for it, they demanded a change of course in Iraq. The American people understand that the current strategy is not working. They have demanded that we honor the extraordinary effort of our troops by providing a strategy for Iraq that is actually worthy of their sacrifice. They don't consider more of the same--additional troops essentially doing what they have been doing before--they don't consider that anything other than an escalation of our military involvement, linked to the same mistakes and same illusions of the past. They don't consider that an acceptable strategy. This new Congress comes here with a mandate, as well as a moral obligation, to find not just a new way forward in Iraq but the right way forward. That is what we owe the families; that is what we owe those fighting forces. It is clear the administration's litany of mistakes has made an incredibly difficult task that much harder and has reduced what we can reasonably expect to accomplish. As the saying goes around here, we are where we are. The mistakes of the past do not change the fact that Congress bears some responsibility for getting us into this war and, therefore, must take responsibility for getting us out. That responsibility starts by having a real bipartisan dialog on where we go from here. I believe we are finally at the point where that can happen. We all agree about the nobility of the service of our troops. We all agree about the incredible bravery of the men and women of our Armed Forces who put their lives on the line every single day in Iraq. We all want to see a stable Iraq. We all know Iraqis want to see it, too. We all agree on the need to preserve our vital national security interests in the region, and we all agree on the importance of preventing the violence in Iraq from spreading into a broader regional conflict. We all understand the need to prevent Iraq from becoming a safe haven for al-Qaida and like-minded terrorists. We all understand the potential of regional chaos and of failed states spreading one to the other. In order to understand, however, where we go from here, we have to remind ourselves of the real nature of this conflict. It is not enough to sort of find some safe haven in rhetoric that points out all of the downsides but continues to pursue a policy that, in fact, increases those downsides, invites those downsides, actually makes matters worse. The civil war we are in the middle of now didn't begin when we went there. It had been tamped down, quashed by a dictatorship and by history. Before I went back to visit the Middle East, I had the chance to read a book by Vali Nasr, called ``The Shia Revival,'' in which he traces the history of Shiaism and what is happening in the Middle East today. What we learned from that is instructive and critical to determining whether troops will make a difference on how we resolve what is happening in Iraq today. When the Prophet Mohammed died, Ali, who was his cousin and stepson and virtual son, was passed over at that time to be the caliph. In fact, three people were chosen in between him. Ultimately, he did become the caliph, but that was the beginning of the difference of the separation, if you will, within Islam. That became far more pronounced about 1,300 years ago, around 680, when the grandson of Ali was slaughtered in the desert along with 72 of his followers--72, a number that comes back to haunt us today, because that was indeed an event in Karballah in 682 that defined martyrdom, which we see played to by the extreme religious efforts that are taking place today in the Middle East. Why do I mention this today? Because that is where the great Shia- Sunni divide began. Ali and his followers were beheaded in the desert, their bodies left to rot in the sun. Their heads were posted, first in Najaf, and later in Damascus. That began to instill a depth of both anger and suppression that has gone on all of these centuries. The fact is that we, through our invasion and our election, have given the Shia at the ballot box what they never could achieve all of those years, and the Sunni, who have continually been the dominant, more secular faction that managed the affairs of state, are suddenly finding themselves in the minority; many believe they were born to the right to rule and are determined to restore it. This is the civil conflict we have put ourselves in the middle of, with American troops who don't speak the language going door to door and house to house, attempting to somehow make sense of an alien environment they have been plunged into--from California, Kansas, Missouri, Massachusetts, and all of our States. We are doing precisely what Secretary Rumsfeld said we would not do--putting our troops in the middle of a civil war. On my recent trip to the Middle East, I heard grave concerns expressed by Sunni leaders, Mubarak and others, about the Shia resurgence and Iran's growing influence in the region. Indeed, Iran's influence has grown, and we are partly responsible, if not significantly responsible, for that growth. We need to stand up for our allies in the region, our Sunni friends, yes. But we can and must do it in a way that doesn't exacerbate the Sunni-Shia rift in the region. That is why we have to ask more of our Sunni allies when it comes to pressuring the Sunnis in Iraq to accept that, with this turn of events called an election, they will no longer--absent a revolution, which some are planning on--be running the country, and that they must lay down their arms and join the political process. We must make clear that countries such as Saudi Arabia can and must do more to crack down on support for those Sunni insurgents coming into Iraq from their country. We dare not forget that it is the Sunni insurgents who are killing many of our troops. Most of those troops have died in Anbar Province. We have a right to demand more from the Sunni neighbors to quell that insurgency. We must encourage those Sunni neighbors to step up in terms of providing debt relief and reconstruction assistance, and we must make clear that threatening to intervene in Iraq in a way that is perceived as being on behalf of the Sunni minority only serves to exacerbate the Sunni-Shia complexity, the tension that is causing so much of the violence today. Now here in Washington, a combination of events on the ground and the November election results are beginning to produce a bipartisan resolve to genuinely change course. Many on both sides of the aisle now agree that the administration's plan to escalate the war in Iraq by sending in some 21,500 additional troops would represent a tragic mistake. It won't end the violence; it won't provide security; it won't turn back the clock and avoid the civil war that is in fact already underway; it won't deter terrorists who have a completely different agenda; it won't rein in the militias who are viewed as the protectors of the general population. It will simply postpone the political solution that is the only solution in Iraq, while further damaging our prestige and credibility in the region. Unfortunately, it will also expose our troops to unnecessary death and injury. Our generals understand this. General Abizaid said clearly in his testimony before the Armed Services Committee that more U.S. troops will not solve the security problem. In fact, he said they would only slow the process of getting Iraqi security forces to take more responsibility. The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously oppose this escalation. In fact, according to recent news reports, the Pentagon warned that any short- term mission may only set up the United States for bigger problems when it ends. A short-term mission could give an enormous edge to virtually all the armed factions in Iraq, including al-Qaida's foreign fighters, Sunni insurgents and Sunni and Shiite militias, without giving an enduring boost to the U.S. military mission or the Iraqi Army. And it is not just the advice of his military commanders in Iraq the President is ignoring, it is the bipartisan counsel of the Iraq Study Group appointed for the very purpose of defining a new course. Mr. President, what kind of arrogance so willfully kicks to the curb the work product of two former Secretaries of State, Republicans, a former Attorney General and Chief of Staff, Republican, a former Senator and member of the leadership, Republican, and a group of moderates, a former Secretary of Defense, and others respected for the moderation of their views on foreign policy and security issues? What kind of arrogance avoids almost all of those recommendations and moves in a different direction? Rather than change course, this administration chose to ignore the generals. In fact, it chose to change the generals. The folly of this escalation is so clear that we have a bipartisan responsibility to do everything in our power to say no. I ask my colleagues: Is there one colleague here who believes that 21,500 troops is going to pacify Iraq? Is there a colleague here who believes that 100,000 troops will pacify Iraq? It is not enough for Congress simply to go on record opposing the President's reckless plan. That is why I support the resolution submitted by my colleague, Senator Kennedy, that requires a new congressional authorization, which is appropriate because the prior authorization only applies to the weapons of mass destruction and to the threat that Iraq poses to us based on the presence of Saddam Hussein. This is a new Iraq, and it is an Iraq with a civil war, and the Congress of the United States has a responsibility and a moral obligation to make certain that if our troops from each of our States are going to fight and die, we stand up and be counted as to what the force structure is to be, as to what their mission should be because this administration has proven unwilling to get it right. Stopping this escalation, however, is not enough. I believe Congress has to provide a responsible exit strategy that preserves our interests in the region, preserves our ability to continue to protect the security of the United States, and honors the sacrifice our troops have made. I believe those are tests we need to pass. Six months ago in the Senate, we stood against appeals to politics and pride and demanded a date to bring our troops home, to make Iraqis stand up for Iraq and fight a more effective war on terror. But while we lost that rollcall, I still believe it was the right policy to put in place, to demand benchmarks, to demand accountability, and to leverage action. That is why I will again introduce legislation, slightly different this time, in order to try to offer a comprehensive strategy for achieving a political solution. I believe the strategy I will set forth is the best way forward for America and for Iraq. We have to find a way to end this misguided war and bring our troops home, and the legislation, while protecting all the interests I described, I believe can do that. I believe the Iraq Study Group's recommendations can form the basis for finding a bipartisan way forward. Many of those proposals, which are consistent with proposals that some in the Senate have long advocated, are incorporated in the legislation I will offer, including launching a major diplomatic initiative, enforcing a series of benchmarks for meeting key political objectives, shifting the military mission to training Iraqi security forces and conducting targeted counterterrorism operations, maintaining an over-the-horizon presence to protect our interests supported by a concerted effort to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate the militias which must be undertaken by Iraqis. This legislation includes an additional provision that is a critical component of the strategy. I know a lot of colleagues were nervous about setting a date. Fewer are as nervous today. But I believe there is a way to require the President to set that date, negotiate that exit, a way to do it constitutionally and also within the context of the reauthorization. I think that is not an arbitrary deadline. In fact, the Iraq Study Group report effectively sets a goal of withdrawing U.S. combat forces from Iraq by the first quarter of 2008, or within approximately 1 year. This date was based on the timeframe for transferring responsibility to Iraqi security forces set forth by General Casey and on the schedule agreed upon with the Iraqi Government itself for achieving key political security objectives. The President even said that under that new strategy, responsibility for security would be transferred to Iraqis before the end of this year. That is how unarbitrary it is. The President has said it, our generals have said it, the Iraq Study Group has said it. I wish to repeat this because it is important because it is continually distorted. We all want success, but we have to examine the realities of the road to success. An effort that combines diplomacy with smart deployment of our troops is the only road to success. I ask my colleagues: Where is the diplomacy? Many of us can remember, under a Republican President, Henry Kissinger shuttling back and forth day and night working to bring an end to the Vietnam war. Many of us can remember Jim Baker, at the beginning of the decade in the nineties, when he took 15 trips to Syria alone, and on the final trip got President Asad to actually agree to support what we were doing. That is diplomacy. We don't have that kind of diplomacy. We lack even a special envoy there day to day, hour to hour, leveraging the Arab League, leveraging the United Nations, working with the U.N. Perm Five, working with the neighboring countries, doing the kinds of significant, heavy diplomatic lifting our sons and daughters who are dying deserve. As our combat troop levels wind down, we can have sufficient forces to confront the Sunni insurgency. We can still continue to prosecute al-Qaida, but our core security interests--the security interests of preventing another terrorist attack on our country--those interests lie where our troops can still play a positive role in confronting Sunni insurgents and their al-Qaida allies. That will happen when we focus on Al Anbar Province, not Baghdad. It is time for Iraqis to assume responsibility for their country, and that is not just a statement. It has been 4 years, 300,000 troops are trained. When I talk with the military people, they don't tell me training is the problem. They tell me motivation is the problem. Those 300,000 troops are not prepared to die for an Iraq yet, and they are mostly local militia and/or local tribe affiliated, which is their true allegiance at this point in time. We need a timetable which forces Iraqi politicians to confront this reality. Americans should not be dying because Iraqi politicians refuse to compromise and come together. If they are not willing to do it today with thousands of people dying around them, with this kind of sectarian violence, what will make them more willing to do that in a year? They are using the security blanket of American presence in order to avoid making those compromises, and we need to understand that and get about the business of leveraging the compromise that is the only solution to what is happening in Iraq. I believe a deadline will actually help provide the Iraqis with the motivation and the pressure to step up and take control. General Abizaid made it clear that is essential to our strategy. The key to providing the motivation is making sure they, in fact, begin to take control and begin to define their own future. As we give the Iraqis more control over their own destiny, we also have to hold them accountable for the fundamentals of leading their country on the construction, as well as the basic resolution, the political differences within the oil revenues, the federalism issue, which are the two great stumbling blocks fundamental to a resolution. Why the President didn't make the condition of providing additional security and putting additional Americans online, why he didn't make their resolution of those issues a precondition is beyond me. But American forces are now going to be put at greater risk, more kids at harm, without the fundamentals that are essential and that are completely out of the power of any squad or company or battalion to be able to resolve. When Prime Minister Maliki took power in May, General Casey and Ambassador Khalilzad said the new Government had 6 months to make the political compromises necessary to win public confidence and unify the country--6 months last May. They were right. And yet with no real deadline to force the Government's hand, that period passed without any meaningful action, and we are now seeing the disastrous results. To ensure history does not repeat itself, we need to put those benchmarks in place, and we need to have those benchmarks agreed upon. That is the least, again, we can ask on behalf of our troops. I, also, believe a deadline is essential to getting Iraq's neighbors to face up to the realities of the security needs of the region. If we are going to be concerned about Iran, it should not be surreptitiously based on them using us. It should be all of us together defining a new security arrangement for the region. General Zinni has talked about that many times. He is one of the most respected hands in that region. In addition, our own intelligence agencies tell us that the war in Iraq is fanning the flames of jihad, and we have to stop serving as an al-Qaida recruitment tool. When are we going to take that seriously in the Senate? We spent a lot of time and energy to reorganize the intelligence community. We supposedly have the best intelligence now, and that intelligence in the conglomerate is telling us that this current policy is putting America at greater risk because we are creating more terrorists, fanning the flames of unrest in the region, and creating a recruitment tool for al-Qaida in that region. We can see the results. Hamas is more powerful now. Hezbollah and Nasrallah are more powerful today. Iran is more powerful today. Syria is more than willing to play with Iran than care about what the concerns might be of the rest of the region. We have gone backward because of this policy. How can this administration stand up and say to us that we have to fear the security interests of the future, when the security interests of the present are moving in the wrong direction? Afghanistan, where the diversion of resources to Iraq has already allowed the Taliban to rise again, is increasing as a threat to those long-term security interests. Osama bin Laden roams free while a regenerated al-Qaida continues to plot attacks on American interests, and the flourishing opium trade has turned the country into a virtual narcostate, funding insurgents and warlords and threatening the viability of the Karzai Government. Now our generals in Afghanistan are warning, in the darkest possible terms, that the Taliban is poised to launch a major new offensive in Afghanistan, and they have issued an urgent appeal for more U.S. troops to fight back. Instead of sending 20,000 troops over to Iraq, we ought to be listening to our military commanders and give them the few thousand more troops they desperately need to deal with the Taliban in Afghanistan. On the broader regional front, we clearly need to come to grips with the need to engage Iran in a way that not only deters Iran from nuclear and other military adventurism, but does not create another disastrous war that is not in our national security interest. I want to take one moment before closing to speak to that point. I am hardly the only one in the Senate who is concerned about a terrible byproduct of the administration's escalation plan for Iraq. That byproduct could be movement towards a calculated military conflict with Iran, which would further destabilize the Middle East, fan the flames of intra-Muslim and Muslim-Western violence. In fact, many Americans are increasingly concerned that the administration's rhetoric regarding Iran sounds eerily familiar. Congress must make it absolutely certain that we do not make the same mistake we made in rushing to war with Iraq, starting by making it clear President Bush does not have the authority to engage Iran militarily, excepting, of course, an immediate attack on our troops or a definable and palpable emergency. He does not have the authority to engage them without express congressional authorization. Looking at recent developments, it is not hard to see why people are concerned. In the President's speech introducing his new Iraq strategy, he issued a thinly veiled threat that sounded as though the administration was at least contemplating military operations on the Iranian side of the border. In the last few weeks we have arrested Iranian nationals in two separate incidents in Iraq. The initial operations against Shiite militias in Baghdad at a minimum are bound to exacerbate tensions with Iran even further, and we recently sent another aircraft carrier to the region, ratcheting up our aggressive posture. Taken alone, individually, there is a certain logic to each of those actions. Taken on the whole, however, they have created an impression in the region, and as we all know impressions are what ultimately push leaders to make judgments about threat and to make determinations about their own actions. The impression in the region is that we have taken the side of the Sunnis in the conflict with Iraq. Whether that is true or not, we must never forget that in the Middle East especially, perception is reality. If we are seen to be favoring the Sunnis, we run the risk of alienating the Shiite majority that will ultimately be running Iraq--that is the reality--and inflaming extremism throughout the region. It is essential that we remain evenhanded in our own actions as well as our words in our efforts to bring stability to Iraq. There is another reason, as the Iraqi Study Group suggested, we should engage Iran and Syria. Leadership means talking to countries who are not our friends. President Kennedy reminded us: Never fear to negotiate but never negotiate out of fear. We need to engage directly when our vital national security interests are at stake. We have done it all through our history. Richard Nixon sent Henry Kissinger to China. President Reagan went to meet with Miguel Gorbachev and came to an agreement on arms after defining the ``evil empire.'' The conversation that I had recently in the Middle East with Senator Dodd, when we traveled there together with President Asad of Syria, led us to believe that a dialog could, in fact, be constructed in working toward a goal that we share with Syria: creating a stable, secular, Arab Iraq. That is at least what President Asad said he would like. It seems to me, given the morass we are in, it is worth putting that to the test. We cannot turn back the clock and reverse the decisions that brought us to this pass in Iraq and the Middle East. We cannot achieve the kind of clear and simple victory the administration promised the American people so often even as the conditions in Iraq grew worse and worse. But we can avoid an outright defeat. We can avoid creating the chaos we say we want to avoid. We can avoid a victory for our adversaries by identifying specifically what we can and cannot accomplish in Iraq. With a new Congress comes a new responsibility: to get this policy right. That starts with preventing the President from going forward with this senseless escalation. And it has to end with finding an exit strategy that preserves our core interests in Iraq, in the region, and throughout the world. I look forward to having a real debate. I hope we can find that way. I might mention, when Senator Dodd and I were about to helicopter out of Baghdad, we were at Landing Zone Washington, which is right in the Green Zone. Many Senators are familiar with it. In the darkness of night, as we were leaving, a young man came up to us to talk to us and he identified himself as an officer in the Army. He was going home for leave and was hitching a ride on the helicopter to go home. He went home, visited his 14- month-old daughter and, I think, his 4-year-old son, if I am correct. His name was Brian Freeman and he was intelligent and thoughtful and bright and he talked about his future and talked with us animatedly about what was going on in Iraq and how he disagreed with what he was being asked to do and how others did. He went home, and we just learned that this Friday he was killed. So he went back. He did his duty as so many have. I know when I returned from war, almost 40 years ago now, I stood up and spoke from my heart and my gut about what I thought was wrong. To this day that has been controversial in some quarters, but I am proud that I told the truth. And that truth has been documented again and again from Army training manuals to books that have been written to the statements of our own Secretary of Defense at that time, Robert McNamara. But, before I finish, I want to make it clear that that is my motivation in talking about this war now and this predicament that so many of these soldiers find themselves in. I asked the question in 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake? Although I knew going into public service I wanted to be in a place where I could have an impact should there be a choice of war in the future, but I never thought that I would be reliving the need to ask that question again. We are there. Most of our colleagues understand this is a mistake. Most of our colleagues understand that 21,000 troops is not going to pacify Iraq. So all of us have a deep-rooted obligation, a deep moral obligation to ask ourselves what we can do to further the interests of our Nation and honor the sacrifices of those troops themselves. I think it is to get this policy right. I hope the President will truly listen to us in these next days because we want to work in good faith to do that. Before I finish, I want to add a note, both personal and political. Two years ago I sought the Presidency to lead us on a different course. I am proud of the campaign we ran, proud of the fact that 3 years ago I said that Iraq was the wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time; proud that we defined energy independence and made it, for the first time, part of the Presidential race; proud of a health care plan that we laid out that to this moment remains viable and waiting to be used in order to lower the health care costs for our fellow Americans. We came close, certainly close enough, to be tempted to try again. There are powerful reasons to want to continue that fight now. But I have concluded this is not the time for me to mount a Presidential campaign. It is time to put my energy to work as part of the majority in the Senate to do all I can to end this war and strengthen our security and our ability to fight the real war on terror. The people of Massachusetts have given me an incredible privilege to serve, and I intend to work here to change a policy in Iraq that threatens all that I have cared about and fought for since I came home from Vietnam. The fact is, what happens here in the next 2 years may irrevocably shape or terribly distort the administration of whichever candidate is next elected President. Decisions are being taken and put into effect today and in the days to come that may leave to the next President a wider war, a war even more painful, more difficult, more prolonged than the war we already have. Iraq, if we Senators force a change of course, may yet bring stability and an exit with American security intact or it may bring our efforts in the region to a failure that we will all recognize as a catastrophe. I don't want the next President to find that he or she has inherited a nation still divided and a policy destined to end as Vietnam did, in a bitter or sad legacy. I intend to devote all my efforts and energies over the next 2 years, not to the race for the Presidency for myself but for doing whatever I can to ensure that the next President can take the oath with a reasonable prospect of success for him or her--for the United States. And I intend to speak the truth as I find it without regard for political correctness or partisan advantage, to advise my colleagues and my fellow citizens to the best of my ability and judgment, and to support every action the Senate may reasonably and constitutionally take to guide and direct the ship of state. This mission, this responsibility, is something all of us must accept, and as someone who made the mistake of voting for the resolution that gave the President the authority to go to war, I feel the weight of a personal responsibility to act, to devote time and energy to the national dialog in an effort to limit this war and bring our participation to a conclusion.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to speak about amendment No. 187. I offer this amendment along with my colleagues Senators Snowe and Sununu to keep open our Nation's most experienced and successful women's business centers. These centers--including those in Boston and Worcester in my home State of Massachusetts, in Portsmouth, NH, and in Wiscasset, ME--provide business counseling and financial literacy training to women who want to start or grow a business. We need to pass this amendment so that the women's business centers have access to the Federal matching money that is necessary to raise private sector capital. For several years now Senator Snowe and I have been working on a solution to keep open the most experienced centers. Last summer our committee passed a bill that would keep these centers open, though it did not become law. I want to thank Senator Snowe and her staff for their collaboration on this important issue, and I also want to thank Senator Sununu for working with us to incorporate changes into his original amendment that reflect our committee's work. I thank the very able and resourceful executive directors of the women's business centers for working with us all these years to keep their centers going, providing women with the tools they need to make their businesses succeed. In my home State, that includes our current leader, Ms. Donna Good, and her predecessor, Andrea Silbert, who started the Center for Women & Enterprise. In my 21 years on the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I have consistently promoted women entrepreneurs and fought for adequate funding for the women's business centers. As chairman of the committee in the 110th Congress, I will do the same and urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this amendment. This important legislation will allow established women's business centers to receive renewability grants after their initial grant cycle of matching funds has expired. The concept of sustainability grants is something I originally introduced in 1999 with my Women's Business Center Sustainability Pilot Program--a bill that garnered widespread bipartisan support and was instrumental in securing additional funding to allow successful and effective centers keep their doors open for women entrepreneurs in their community. And last Congress Senator Snowe and I introduced the Women's Small Business Ownership Programs Act, which allowed proven centers with a successful track record to receive additional 3-year renewal grants beyond an initial 4-year grant cycle. The amendment we introduced today builds upon our previous legislative proposals by giving established women's business centers the ability to apply for 3-year grants on an ongoing basis. It would provide women's business centers with a permanent funding stream in the future. By adopting this amendment today, we will ensure that successful and experienced centers are able to continue serving entrepreneurs by giving women-owned small businesses the tools they need to grow and flourish. Madam President, I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of this amendment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Would the Senator allow me to interrupt for a request and I will ask unanimous consent that the interruption not show in his comments?

Mr. KERRY. I want to make request to get into the order, if I could.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, first, let me begin by congratulating my colleague from Colorado on his comments, which are important. As I think the Chair knows, during the course of the 2004 cycle, I made energy independence one of the centerpieces of the campaign. In fact, I am proud that I was the first Presidential candidate to ever advertise in a campaign on that topic. We tried to lay out why and how it is so critical to the security of our country, the health of our country, the economy of our country, and the jobs that would be created. Of course, in terms of environmental protection, it is common sense. There are huge gains to be made with respect to efficiency. Efficiency, in fact, is the largest place available to grab CO2 out of the atmosphere, which is the biggest problem with global warming, global climate change. So there is an enormous agenda here. In fact, this administration isn't even in the game. It is sad when you measure it against the demands of the country. So I appreciate what the Senator has said. This is something that has to become a priority over the course of the next days here, and we are going to do everything in our power to help make it so.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, 10 years ago today, this country lost a leader and this Chamber lost a colleague, and Massachusetts lost a favorite son. Ten years ago today, cancer took Paul Tsongas from us prematurely at 55 years of age. He left three wonderful daughters: Ashley, Katina, and Molly, and his special and extraordinary wife Niki, and he left an enormous number of friends and people whom he touched and affected across the country, those who joined him to help reform our politics. Paul was a very different kind of public person. He walked his own path. He walked to his own tune. Today we remember him and we join the people in Merrimack Valley and across Massachusetts and so many others who came to appreciate and respect him and learned a lot about him through his Presidential campaign. We honor a life that elevated those whom he knew, and the countless people he never met, but whose lives he affected through the things he fought for and believed in. Paul Tsongas inspired with his optimism and his drive, his disarming humor, and his love of causes both distant and local. He was proud of his Greek heritage, proud of his roots as the son of a drycleaner, proud of Lowell, and he became a champion of environmental protection and expanding opportunity so the full measure of the American dream that he came to see as a young person himself was accessible to everybody else. He set a high standard for public service which he continued even after he left the Senate. He continued out of office to work across the aisle proving, with former Senator Warren Rudman and their Concord Coalition, that balancing the budget was not a partisan agenda item and that fiscal discipline could, in fact, invigorate and not stifle the American economy. Paul Tsongas was a Democratic deficit hawk before it was popular and, I might add, together with Senator Gary Hart, was part of that new vanguard that helped to define the defense issues of our Nation in a modern context. He understood also that being a Democrat did not mean being antibusiness. In Lowell, Paul served as a city councilor and then later as a reformed county commissioner. He loved Lowell. He loved that old mill town where he was born. Even at the end of his life, he knew every single person there, from Main Street through the largest businesses, and he could still see where he had grown up from the house where he lived in his last days. Paul came to Washington, where he worked with Tip O'Neill, Joe Moakley, Republican Sil Conte, and Ed Brooke in a bipartisan, golden age for the Massachusetts delegation. Paul's love of ideas and his love of Lowell helped trigger one of the earliest sparks of high-tech innovation in Massachusetts. Through his championing of early computer companies such as Wang and others, he helped to fuel the whole era of such stunning ingenuity that it changed the face of America and enhanced our technological leadership in the world. Paul helped Lowell reinvent itself after years of decline, and in 1978, he was elected to the Senate. After one term only in the Senate, he gave up his seat in order to be with his family and fight cancer. He was sustained by the loving support of his sister, his wife, and his daughters, whom he treasured. Paul at age 7, had lost his own mother to tuberculosis, so this idea of being with family during that kind of crucial time was particularly poignant to him. As a friend of Paul's famously told him: No man ever died wishing he had spent more time with his business. Paul was first diagnosed with cancer in 1983 and he fought it courageously from that day forward. Right to the end of his life, he was tenacious in his support for the causes he believed in, in his fight against the devastating disease that eventually took him but never stole his spirit. Instead, he brought to the fight the same optimism and determination that made him so successful in the Peace Corps. In 1992, when in remission, Paul ran for the Presidency, and he ran one of the most bracingly honest and politically courageous Presidential campaigns of our time. His was a campaign defined by common sense and by that wry sense of humor more than it was defined by fiery oratory. He managed to win Democratic primaries in New Hampshire and three other primaries and four State caucuses before the man from Lowell finally ceded the nomination to the man from Hope. Paul reached across the country to the distant shores of the Pacific as coauthor of the Alaska Lands Act, which protected millions of acres of pristine wilderness. He made an admirable contribution to our environment. His aggressive policies to protect our natural resources were truly an investment in our future. He made life-long friends in Ethiopia as a result of his Peace Corps service in the early 1960s, proving even as a young man that his sense of the world reached beyond the horizon and to cultures far from his roots. Today, in Lowell, the name Tsongas graces a museum of industrial history, part of the National Park Service, where the full story, both good and bad, of the industrial revolution and the textile industry in Massachusetts is presented for thousands of visitors, young and old, every year. Today, the name Tsongas graces an arena where athletic excellence, a passion dear to Paul's heart, is practiced along with political conventions and trade shows. So I rise today not only as the Senator who inherited his seat; I rise as an admirer and a friend. To know Paul Tsongas was to see up close what this business we work in means in people's lives, and the full arch of his time on Earth illuminates the larger impact each of us can have on our communities, on our State, and on our Nation. That is why this day is special for this Chamber, a sad, proud memory for Lowell and for Massachusetts, and a moment to reflect on Paul's life and his contributions. It is hard to believe Senator Tsongas has been gone for 10 years. If he were with us today, Paul would be a strong voice full of insight, humor, and wisdom, all in that inimitable style, once modest, but incredibly forceful, the style we came to know and appreciate so much. Lowell, MA will miss Paul Tsongas, America misses him, but we remember him today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, Senate Standing Rule XXVI requires each committee to adopt rules to govern the procedures of the Committee and to publish those rules in the Congressional Record not later than March 1 of the first year of each Congress. Today, January 18, 2007, the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship held a business meeting during which the members of the committee unanimously adopted rules to govern the procedures of the committee. Consistent with Standing Rule XXVI, I am submitting for printing in the Congressional Record a copy of the Rules of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship for the 110th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, one of the best things about the Senate and the character of this place and the opportunity it provides all of us is we are privileged to work with people as our experts on our committees and our aides who, even more than many of us, dedicate decades to this institution and to the causes that bring them to public service. They do it selflessly, never seeking the headlines but always trying to shape those headlines, making contributions that are most often left in the unwritten history of this institution and of the country. The fact is, though, as my colleagues know, it is these individuals and their commitment that really writes that history and makes an unbelievable contribution to the country as a whole. One such person I have had the privilege of working with for the entire time I have been here, for 22-plus years. No one is a more dedicated, harder working, more idealistic, passionate, and effective example of that special kind of public service than Dr. Nancy Stetson of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who is retiring this year after over 25 years of remarkable service--groundbreaking service, really--to the Senate. As a young and idealistic doctoral student, Nancy first came to Washington to work on her thesis and to ask the question whether a single legislator could make a difference in the shaping of American foreign policy. Her subject was Senator ``Scoop'' Jackson and the long record that he amassed in the Cold War through the legislation that to this day bears his name, the Jackson-Vanik waiver. Nancy found that on Capitol Hill, despite the Historians' fixation on the rise and fall of the imperial Presidency, one Senator can make a lasting impact on America's role in the world. But it has really been for her role to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and to me personally that I want to pay her tribute today. She began working for Senator Pell from her beloved home State of Rhode Island and, then, of course, for Chairman Biden. I really inherited her in a sense from Senator Pell because when we came into the majority in 1986, Senator Pell was a chairman who believed in delegating responsibility. I was then the chairman of one of the subcommittees that had jurisdiction over the State Department budget and a number of issues that sort of brought Nancy to me. So there she was, one Senate staffer with a lot more knowledge on how the committee and the Senate worked than I had. She was committed, dogged, and determined to make this kind of impact or to affect the life of a Senator life who was trying to make that impact. So I ask my colleagues to consider the legacy of this remarkable staff person. Among her many proud accomplishments as a senior aide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee was the South Africa sanctions bill and the normalization of relations between America and Vietnam that culminated in the signing of the United States-Vietnam trade agreement in the last Congress. I am also particularly proud of Nancy's work as the principal architect of the Vietnam Education Foundation and the Vietnam Fulbright Program. These are two programs that we worked on during the 1990s together, but it was really her sense of the possible and her willingness to do a lot of the detail work that helped to bring them to maturity. Working with a very close friend of mine, a Vietnam veteran from Massachusetts, we helped to shape, and she helped to shape, what is now the largest Fulbright program of the U.S. Government, the program with Vietnam. We have students from Vietnam studying at Harvard in Massachusetts and likewise professors and others going from Harvard to Vietnam to help train their new technicians and leaders of the future. I think Nancy and I both believed for the years we spent in a war that became so controversial and tore this country apart--which set out as our goal to transform a country, Vietnam--that this was the best way to complete that task; that the war in a sense had not ended, and there was a way to try to ultimately make peace with Vietnam, with ourselves, and build a new future for that country and for ours. This Vietnam Education Foundation and this Fulbright program have been instrumental in helping us to do that. And today, Vietnam is simply a transformed, extraordinarily different country. It was an innovative policy, and it was a master stroke of public diplomacy for which Nancy deserves enormous credit. Without her vision and her perseverance, we would not be able to talk today, in foreign policy, in terms that say that Vietnam is not just a war but a country. It became a country because of this kind of effort and this kind of outreach in the consciousness of Americans. We have a relationship today that we could have never imagined when so many of us were in uniform so many years ago. It is no exaggeration to say that entire effort of normalization also was part of Nancy's craftsmanship. And I will talk about that in a moment. In addition to the normalization with Vietnam, Nancy contributed enormously to global health issues and to some of the most significant policies of any industrialized country against diseases of poverty. Her work on malaria, TB, and AIDS, where she fought to significantly increase the U.S. contribution to the Global AIDS Fund, were among her proudest accomplishments. People across the world today literally owe their lives to Nancy's work. I remember when we began that effort, Senator Helms was then chairman, and a lot of people said: You are never going to get anything through this committee. Well, with slow and steady work, we not only got it through the committee, we got Senator Helms, to his credit, to be one of the principal cosponsors of this effort. Together with Senator Frist, we drafted the first original comprehensive plan on AIDS that passed the Senate and which became the centerpiece of how we are approaching particularly Sub-Sahara and Africa today, but really our global efforts to try to deal with this scourge that is growing, I might say notwithstanding those efforts, for lack of global initiative and effort to focus on it. Over the last 22 years in the Senate, Nancy Stetson and I traveled to many parts of the world. We went to Latin America, to Central America, to East Asia, to the Middle East, to dozens of countries on more trips than I can count. And I will tell you something. Nancy has the ability to win the ``Amazing Race,'' for those of you who have ever seen it. She secured meetings with heads of state, Nobel Prize winners, and unsung health advocates in some of the poorest countries of the world. She pulled me and other staffs through the wilds of Myanmar, negotiated travel to remote areas of Vietnam, handled the logistical complexities of visiting Indonesia, Cuba. She gave up weekends, holidays, and vacations. And on trips she would stay up into the night, preparing for a press conference or a speech or a policy statement, and convincing the hotel business centers to open at 2 a.m. in Hanoi or Bangkok. She gave up her 50th birthday. We celebrated it in New Delhi. It is hard to overstate the long hours, the incredible effort, the passion, and the personal sacrifice that Nancy has put into working for me and for her country. She was indefatigable, and I am incredibly grateful. I might add that on occasion there were some very tricky moments in Vietnam when we were trying to open prisons and open the history centers in order to resolve the issue of POW-MIA, and it required some delicate negotiations. For American soldiers to be reentering Vietnamese prisons and communities by helicopter was an emotional leap for the Vietnamese to make. Nancy built wonderful relationships with leaders, with those people who could make those doors open. And, indeed, they did. I am grateful to her for that. She was incredibly loyal, brilliant, blunt, honest, absolutely smart as a tack, and wiley. She always asked the questions that needed to be asked of me. Time and time again, when I failed to ask the right question before a witness at our committee, I could always expect that tap on the shoulder and the passing of a note, a reminder from Nancy of what really should have been said or really should have been asked. Part prosecutor, part conscience, part intellectual, on matters of foreign policy, I was proud to think of her as an alter ego. And I hope that in some of my better moments, if there were a few, she thought the same of me. She could step in as a surrogate Senator at the drop of a hat, and I mean that literally. When a massive fire took the lives of six of our firefighters in Worcester, MA, immediately--I was in Asia at the time in Myanmar and about to meet with Aung San Suu Kyi--and I immediately canceled all my meetings and flew back to be in Worcester. But Nancy stayed there and soldiered on and went to my meetings for me. In Burma, meeting with dissident Aung San Suu Kyi, she was herself living out her own commitment on the diplomatic stage with poise and with courage and with intelligence that I think is a credit to the Senate. Nancy's first love was Africa. She started her career focusing on it. Many years later, she returned to work on the devastating health issues plaguing the continent now. She had a knack for seeing reality quicker than most. She was never swept up by the headlines or the political sales pitch. She was prescient in seeing the disastrous path that has played out in Iraq for what it is and for helping me to devise a policy going forward. She has never been afraid to act on her conscience. Nancy is headed now to Massachusetts to become the vice president for health policy at the New England Health Care Institute. Her Senate family will miss her more than we can ever properly express. Even as we wish her good luck and much happiness in her new endeavor, I hope she knows she is not going to escape my badgering e-mails or 3 a.m. phone call from Baghdad or Amman to mine her thoughts. I have worked with Nancy longer and probably more closely than I have worked with just about anyone in my time in the Senate. As I mentioned, we traveled the world together. Although she may not realize it--I may not have said it in so many words in those long flights to Asia or back, or during the many long hours and late nights here in the Senate--I know in my heart I could not have done it without her energy, without her drive, her grit, her tough-mindedness, and her loyalty. She has worked long and hard without ever getting the credit she rightly deserves for the amazing things she accomplished in her time in the Senate. So I just want to say thank you to this special woman for her contributions to this institution and to our country.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to inform the Members of the Committee that the Committee will hold an organizational meeting on Thursday, January 18, 2007 at 9 a.m. in Russell 428A. Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1, please.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time is divided up now?

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, my amendment is cosponsored by Senator Salazar, Senator Ben Nelson, and Senator Pryor, and it is based on a bill Senator Salazar and I introduced that we hope will go some further distance in this effort we are engaged in now with ethics reform to reestablish the trust of the American people in their Government in Washington. We do this by an effort to prevent Members of Congress who betray that trust from receiving their pensions. This is plain deterrence. It is an effort to try to make it clear there are serious consequences to betraying that trust. In a sense, the trust is larger than perhaps the day-to-day relationship of most citizens in this country to the law. We take a special oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. But, more importantly, when people elect you to high Federal office, or any office, they are putting a special kind of trust in you to represent their lives, their interests, their values--indeed, the highest level of aspiration of values that we all share in this country. So this is done because there is something that grates in the notion that you can put the public's trust and the public's business up for sale and then walk away and have the people whom you betrayed turn around and pay for you to be able to have for the rest of your life a fat pension because of the level of service you had reached at their trust. Let me be very specific about this. A few years ago, Congressmen Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham sat down at a cozy meeting with some lobbyists and he proceeded to betray the public trust. He used his official congressional stationary to draft a series of quid pro quo deals. Let me show you this blowup of the stationary itself: Here is the congressional seal. Here is Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham's name. Here is a list of the amounts of millions of dollars: $16 million; ``BT''--that is ``boat''--``140''--that was $140,000--$17 million; an additional $50,000; $18 million, $50,000. Once they paid about $340,000. The price of this service went down, and he charged only $25,000 for each million dollars of contract that he would award. He was convicted of collecting approximately $2.4 million in homes, yachts, antique furnishings, and other bribes--including a Rolls Royce--from defense contractors. This disgraceful conduct--which is beyond the comprehension of any Member of this institution--earned him 8 years and 4 months in a Federal prison, and it has required him to also pay the Government $1.8 million in penalties but also some back taxes. But under today's rules, the American taxpayer is going to continue to pay a Federal pension that is out of the reach of any American taxpayer, and that is disgraceful. Right now, only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, would cost a Member of Congress their pension. So we set a standard for the pension being held accountable, but it is only for two things. Surely we ought to put this moral bar higher than that. Most Americans do not get a $40,000 a year pension. Those who abuse the public trust should not be allowed to exploit the Federal system at taxpayers' expense. The American people cannot afford to spend millions on pensions for politicians who steal from them. More importantly, Congress cannot afford to have a standard where it is willing to forgive and forget and betray that trust. I have shown what the ``bribe menu'' was, which is a pretty extraordinary menu. Unfortunately, Congressman Cunningham was not alone. Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged taking trips, tickets, meals, and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients. In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return, Representative Ney received all-expenses-paid and reduced-price trips to Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans to gamble, and a vacation in Lake George--all courtesy of Mr. Abramoff. Another former Congressman, Jim Traficant, currently enjoys a lavish taxpayer-funded lifetime pension worth an estimated $1.2 million, despite being thrown out of Congress and sent to jail. So these examples are just three of at least 20 former lawmakers who were convicted of serious crimes and are still receiving a taxpayer- funded pension, some as high as $125,000 a year. As I said earlier, we should hold ourselves to the highest standards. The principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer- financed pensions. This should serve, hopefully, as a bold deterrent that when any Member comes in here, they know they are putting their lives at greater risk than just the penalty they might pay on a short- term basis for their particular transgression. This amendment denies Federal pensions--as soon as is legally possible--to Members of Congress who are convicted of white-collar crimes, such as bribery of public officials and witnesses, conspiracy to defraud the United States, perjury in falsely denying the commission of bribery or conspiracy, and subornation of perjury committed in connection with the false denial or false testimony of another individual. It is my understanding there is some concern among a couple of Members about how this legislation might affect innocent spouses and children of Members of Congress who lose their pensions as a result of this legislation. Obviously, we are trying to set up an adequate deterrent to prevent people from that in the first place. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute.

Mr. KERRY. But after the legislation is enacted, the Member will still receive a refund of all of their personal contributions--those will not be taken away--into either the Federal Employees Retirement System or the Civil Service Retirement System, and they will retain all the benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan. Also, the payment of spousal benefits is permitted in forfeiture cases when the Attorney General determines that the spouse cooperated with Federal authorities in the conduct of a criminal investigation. This can significantly improve our Government by the way business is done. I hope my colleagues will join overwhelmingly in voting to prohibit sending pension checks to criminals. This amendment is a step in the right direction.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week Cpl Jason Dunham was posthumously recognized for his bravery in Iraq with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Corporal Dunham exemplified the valor and selflessness of an American service member. As a leader of his Marine Corps rifle squad Corporal Dunham encountered an Iraqi insurgent along the Iraq/Syria border. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground when he become aware that he was about to throw a grenade he had been hiding. Without a moment's hesitation, Corporal Dunham sacrificed himself and threw himself on the grenade, using his body as a shield for the rest of his unit. He died from the wounds he sustained from the blast--but his act of heroism saved two Marine lives. Today I reintroduce a bill that would ensure that this Nation more appropriately honors our veterans and soldiers like Corporal Dunham. This bill requires the use of 90 percent gold in the Congressional Medal of Honor instead of gold-plated brass, as is currently used. The Medal of Honor is the highest award our country bestows for valor in action against an enemy force. These are ordinary soldiers who performed extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving what President Lincoln termed ``the final full measure'' in doing so. Corporal Dunham in receiving this honor joins many other noble service members. This is the medal won by Marine Corps pilot, CPT Joe Foss, who in less than 30 days of combat over Guadalcanal, shot down 23 enemy planes, three in one engagement, and is credited with turning- back an entire Japanese bombing mission before it could drop a single bomb. This is the medal won by Army PVT Edward Moskala who set aside his personal safety one night on the island of Okinawa to assault two machine gun nests, provide cover for his unit as it withdrew, and rescue fallen comrades amidst a hail of enemy fire before finally suffering a mortal wound. This is the medal won by PMFC Francis Pierce, Jr., who on the island of Iwo Jima exposed himself repeatedly to enemy fire to save the lives of Marines he accompanied, traversing open terrain to rescue comrades and assaulting enemy positions that endangered his wounded comrades. This is the medal won by Air Force CPT Hilliard A. Wilbanks who made repeated strafing runs over an advancing enemy element near Dalat, Republic of Vietnam on February 24, 1967. Captain Wilbanks' aircraft, it should be noted, was neither armed nor armored. He made the assaults by sticking his rifle out the window and flying low over the enemy. His action saved the lives of friendly forces, but it cost him his own. Corporal Dunham has now been added to this esteemed group of heroes. Their brave acts are more than just inspirational stories, they are sacrifices made by real men and women that serve their country with pride. This is a time in history when we are asking more and more from our men and women in uniform. They answer this call every time with honor and sacrifice. We should make the medals we award them for these acts commensurate with their dedication. Regrettably, the medal itself, though gold in color, is actually brass plated with gold. It costs only about $30 to craft the award itself. As a veteran I recognize the value of the Medal does not lie in its composition but the sacrifices and service that merited it. However, this is a small way that we can express our gratitude to these heroes by giving them a medal that shows the depth of our appreciation. Compared with other medals, the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is meant to be one of the country's highest honors, falls woefully short. Congress awards foreign dignitaries, famous singers, and other civilians, with medals that cost up to $30,000. For our veterans that give so much of themselves to this country you will agree that we can do better. Put simply, this legislation will forge a medal more worthy of the esteem with which the nation holds those few who have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor through valor and heroism beyond compare.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this week Cpl Jason Dunham was posthumously recognized for his bravery in Iraq with the Congressional Medal of Honor. Corporal Dunham exemplified the valor and selflessness of an American service member. As a leader of his Marine Corps rifle squad Corporal Dunham encountered an Iraqi insurgent along the Iraq/Syria border. Corporal Dunham wrestled the insurgent to the ground when he become aware that he was about to throw a grenade he had been hiding. Without a moment's hesitation, Corporal Dunham sacrificed himself and threw himself on the grenade, using his body as a shield for the rest of his unit. He died from the wounds he sustained from the blast--but his act of heroism saved two Marine lives. Today I reintroduce a bill that would ensure that this Nation more appropriately honors our veterans and soldiers like Corporal Dunham. This bill requires the use of 90 percent gold in the Congressional Medal of Honor instead of gold-plated brass, as is currently used. The Medal of Honor is the highest award our country bestows for valor in action against an enemy force. These are ordinary soldiers who performed extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving what President Lincoln termed ``the final full measure'' in doing so. Corporal Dunham in receiving this honor joins many other noble service members. This is the medal won by Marine Corps pilot, CPT Joe Foss, who in less than 30 days of combat over Guadalcanal, shot down 23 enemy planes, three in one engagement, and is credited with turning- back an entire Japanese bombing mission before it could drop a single bomb. This is the medal won by Army PVT Edward Moskala who set aside his personal safety one night on the island of Okinawa to assault two machine gun nests, provide cover for his unit as it withdrew, and rescue fallen comrades amidst a hail of enemy fire before finally suffering a mortal wound. This is the medal won by PMFC Francis Pierce, Jr., who on the island of Iwo Jima exposed himself repeatedly to enemy fire to save the lives of Marines he accompanied, traversing open terrain to rescue comrades and assaulting enemy positions that endangered his wounded comrades. This is the medal won by Air Force CPT Hilliard A. Wilbanks who made repeated strafing runs over an advancing enemy element near Dalat, Republic of Vietnam on February 24, 1967. Captain Wilbanks' aircraft, it should be noted, was neither armed nor armored. He made the assaults by sticking his rifle out the window and flying low over the enemy. His action saved the lives of friendly forces, but it cost him his own. Corporal Dunham has now been added to this esteemed group of heroes. Their brave acts are more than just inspirational stories, they are sacrifices made by real men and women that serve their country with pride. This is a time in history when we are asking more and more from our men and women in uniform. They answer this call every time with honor and sacrifice. We should make the medals we award them for these acts commensurate with their dedication. Regrettably, the medal itself, though gold in color, is actually brass plated with gold. It costs only about $30 to craft the award itself. As a veteran I recognize the value of the Medal does not lie in its composition but the sacrifices and service that merited it. However, this is a small way that we can express our gratitude to these heroes by giving them a medal that shows the depth of our appreciation. Compared with other medals, the Congressional Medal of Honor, which is meant to be one of the country's highest honors, falls woefully short. Congress awards foreign dignitaries, famous singers, and other civilians, with medals that cost up to $30,000. For our veterans that give so much of themselves to this country you will agree that we can do better. Put simply, this legislation will forge a medal more worthy of the esteem with which the nation holds those few who have earned the Congressional Medal of Honor through valor and heroism beyond compare.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Salazar and I are the Congressional Pension Accountability Act legislation to deny Federal pensions to Members of Congress who are convicted of white collar crime such as bribery. A similar provision passed the House of Representatives during the 109th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the ethics reform legislation to be considered by the Senate this week. I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must be held accountable for their actions. Last year, a series of scandals exposed Washington lobbyists and Members of Congress who used undue and improper influence to represent special interests in their dealings with the Federal Government. In 2005, the now infamous Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in a plea agreement. The Justice Department is currently investigating his attempts to influence Federal Government policy in both Congress and the Executive Branch. Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged taking trips, tickets, meals and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients. In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return, Representative Ney received all-expense-paid and reduced-price trips to Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans to gamble and a vacation in Lake George, NY, all courtesy of Mr. Abramoff. In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in Federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, former Representative Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting close to 5 years, with Federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, and antique furniture and paying for travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter. These stories are outrageous and they sicken me. As elected representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who represent the Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer fmanced pensions. Under current law, former Representatives Cunningham, Ney and others convicted of serious ethics abuses will receive a Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year--paid for by American taxpayers. Only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, will cost a Member of Congress their pension. This law must be changed to ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior. The Congressional Pension Accountability Act will bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy, perjury or other serious ethics offenses. It is my understanding that there is some concern about how this legislation may affect innocent spouses and children of Members of Congress who lose their pensions as a result of this legislation. Even after this legislation is enacted, the Member will still receive a refund of all contributions into either the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and will retain all benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The Congressional Pension Accountability Act is supported by the National Taxpayers Union and a similar provision is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Family Research Council and Citizens Against Government Waste. Together we can significantly improve our government by changing the way business is done in Washington. I believe this legislation will help ensure that our government once again responds to the needs of our people, not special interests. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Salazar and I are the Congressional Pension Accountability Act legislation to deny Federal pensions to Members of Congress who are convicted of white collar crime such as bribery. A similar provision passed the House of Representatives during the 109th Congress. I look forward to working with my colleagues to include this legislation in the ethics reform legislation to be considered by the Senate this week. I strongly believe that all Members of Congress must be held to the highest ethical standards and those who violate the public trust must be held accountable for their actions. Last year, a series of scandals exposed Washington lobbyists and Members of Congress who used undue and improper influence to represent special interests in their dealings with the Federal Government. In 2005, the now infamous Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to conspiracy, mail fraud and tax evasion charges in a plea agreement. The Justice Department is currently investigating his attempts to influence Federal Government policy in both Congress and the Executive Branch. Last November, Representative Bob Ney resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty to conspiracy and making false statements. In a plea agreement, former Representative Ney acknowledged taking trips, tickets, meals and campaign donations from Mr. Abramoff in return for taking official actions on behalf of Abramoff clients. In March 2002, Representative Ney inserted an amendment in the Help America Vote Act to lift an existing Federal ban against commercial gaming by a Texas Native American tribal client of Abramoff. In return, Representative Ney received all-expense-paid and reduced-price trips to Scotland to play golf, a trip to New Orleans to gamble and a vacation in Lake George, NY, all courtesy of Mr. Abramoff. In the largest bribery case in the Congress since the 1980s, Representative Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham recently resigned from the House of Representatives after pleading guilty in Federal court to receiving $2.4 million in bribes from military contractors and evading more than $1 million in taxes. In a plea agreement, former Representative Cunningham admitted to a pattern of bribery lasting close to 5 years, with Federal contractors giving him Persian rugs, a Rolls-Royce, and antique furniture and paying for travel and hotel expenses, use of a yacht and a lavish graduation party for his daughter. These stories are outrageous and they sicken me. As elected representatives, we must hold ourselves and all those who represent the Federal Government to the highest ethical standards. The principle is a simple one: Public servants who abuse the public trust and are convicted of ethics crimes should not collect taxpayer fmanced pensions. Under current law, former Representatives Cunningham, Ney and others convicted of serious ethics abuses will receive a Congressional pension of approximately $40,000 per year--paid for by American taxpayers. Only a conviction for a crime against the United States, such as treason or espionage, will cost a Member of Congress their pension. This law must be changed to ensure that Congress does not reward unethical behavior. The Congressional Pension Accountability Act will bar Members of Congress from receiving taxpayer-funded retirement benefits after they have been convicted of bribery, conspiracy, perjury or other serious ethics offenses. It is my understanding that there is some concern about how this legislation may affect innocent spouses and children of Members of Congress who lose their pensions as a result of this legislation. Even after this legislation is enacted, the Member will still receive a refund of all contributions into either the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) or the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS) and will retain all benefits from the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). The Congressional Pension Accountability Act is supported by the National Taxpayers Union and a similar provision is supported by Taxpayers for Common Sense, the Family Research Council and Citizens Against Government Waste. Together we can significantly improve our government by changing the way business is done in Washington. I believe this legislation will help ensure that our government once again responds to the needs of our people, not special interests. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007. This legislation creates a new tax credit that will put the cost of higher education in reach for American families. An October 2006 College Board report found that this year tuition and other costs at public and private universities rose faster than inflation. And, according to the report, tuition and fees at public universities rose more in the past five years than at any other time in the past 30 years, increasing by 35 percent to $5,836 this academic year. Over the same time period, tuition and fees at private universities increased 22 percent to $22,218. Unfortunately, neither student aid funds nor family incomes are keeping pace with increasing tuition and fees. In my travels around the country, I frequently hear from parents concerned they will not be able to pay for their children's college. These parents know that earning a college education will result in greater earnings for their children and they desperately want to ensure their kids have the greatest opportunities possible. In 1997, we implemented two new tax credits to make college affordable--the HOPE Credit and the Lifetime Learning Credit. These tax credits were important and have put college in reach for families, but I believe we can do more. In December, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on tax incentives for higher education in which we learned that the existing tax credits are not reaching enough students, particularly lower-income students who are most severely impacted by rising tuitions. The HOPE and Lifetime Learning credits are not refundable, and therefore a family of four must have an income over $30,000 in order to receive the maximum credit. Almost half of families with college students fail to receive the full credit because their income is too low. In order to receive the full benefit of the Lifetime Learning credit, a student has to spend $10,000 a year on tuition and fees. This is nearly double the average annual public four-year college tuition and four times the average annual tuition of a community college. Over 80 percent of college students attend schools with tuition and fees under $10,000. In 2004, I proposed a refundable tax credit to help pay for the cost of four years of college. Currently the HOPE Credit applies only to the first two years of college. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 (COTC) helps students and parents afford all four years of college. It also builds on the proposal I made in 2004 by incorporating some of the suggestions made by experts, including those at this week's Finance Committee hearing. My legislation creates a new credit that replaces the existing HOPE credit and Lifetime Learning credit and ultimately makes these benefits more generous. The COTC has two components. The first provides a refundable tax credit for a student enrolled in a degree program at least on a half- time basis. It would provide a 100 percent tax credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 50 percent tax credit to the next $3,000 of expenses. The maximum credit would be $2,500 each year per student. The second provides a nonrefundable tax credit for part-time students, graduate students, and other students that do not qualify for the refundable tax credit. It provides a 40 percent credit for the first $1,000 of eligible expenses and a 20 percent credit for the next $3,000 of expenses. Both of these credits can be used for expenses associated with tuition and fees. The same income limits that apply to the HOPE credit and the Lifetime Learning credit apply to the COTC; the COTC will be phased out ratably for taxpayers with income between $45,000 and $55,000 ($90,000 and $110,000 for married taxpayers). These amounts are indexed for inflation, as are the eligible amounts of expenses. The College Opportunity Tax Credit Act of 2007 simplifies the existing credits that make higher education more affordable and will enable more students to be eligible for tax relief. I understand that many of my colleagues are interested in making college more affordable. I look forward to working with my colleagues to make a refundable tax credit for college education a reality this Congress. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.