John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my colleague. Mr. President, let me begin by saying that all through the years we have been here before. We have had this vote before a number of times. And each time, thank God, the Senate in its wisdom has protected the Constitution of the United States. I must say that I have concern at a time when real leaders ought to be uniting the country around our biggest challenges, in a summer when American soldiers are in harm's way in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the world, while families at home are struggling with record gas prices, with health care costs soaring, jobs being shipped overseas and veterans who are defending our country and flag are still going without the health care they were promised, it is astonishing that we are here having this debate. This debate, like wars themselves, can pit father against father, family against family, veteran against veteran. It is a complicated debate emotionally, and I understand that. I am not doubting at all the emotional feeling which is real for every American about our flag. We all understand that. I remember taking an oath in 1965 with a group of friends of mine who decided--all of us--that we ought to serve our country. We went into different branches of the service with a common sense of what our obligation was. But when I raised my hand, I did not raise my hand to defend the flag; I raised my hand and took an oath to defend the Constitution and our country. A lot of those friends did not come home. They were buried in coffins that bore that flag until the moment of their burial, and then that flag was given to a family member. That flag was a symbol of their sacrifice, a symbol of their gift, a symbol of our country itself and all that it stands for, but it was not our country itself. I think each of us still feels bound by those oaths. I took almost the same oath when I came here to the Senate. The obligation is the same: to defend what the Framers of the Constitution intended and never to give in to the passions of the moment, to the momentary urge to try to respond to something emotional that, no matter how much the emotion is genuine, and it is, takes away from the larger principle and larger set of values that guide our country. I think it would be a grave mistake if we broke those oaths in the Senate today. We need to listen to the voices of patriotism which urge us to do our real duty. Our former colleague, one of the best and bravest men I know, Senator John Glenn, said: [T]hose 10 amendments we call the Bill of Rights have never been changed or altered by one iota, not by one word, not a single time in all of American history. There was not a single change during any of our foreign wars, and not during recessions or depressions or panics. Not a single change when we were going through times of great emotion and anger like the Vietnam era, when flag after flag was burned or desecrated. There is only one way to weaken our nation. Senator Glenn said: The way to weaken our nation would be to erode the freedom that we all share. Gary May, who lost both his legs above the knee after a landmine explosion in Vietnam--a veteran who was awarded the Bronze Star with combat ``V'' and the Purple Heart--spoke for all of us when he said: [A]s offensive and painful as flag burning is to me, I still believe that those dissenting voices need to be heard. . . . The freedom of expression, even when it hurts, is the truest test of our dedication to the belief that we have that right. This is not a test of who loves the flag; this is a test of who has the courage to protect the Constitution. Mr. President, as I said, I think every single American feels the same emotions when they see the flag. I have seen it in so many different kinds of circumstances where I have been moved and touched by what it does symbolize to us. But our flag is, in the end, not the Bill of Rights. It does not carry in it the freedoms that are expressed in the Bill of Rights. It symbolizes those freedoms. The fact is, who we are is embodied, above all, in a document that has not been changed since the beginning. A desecrated flag is replaceable. Desecrated rights are lost forever. What makes the United States different, I think in many ways stronger than any other nation, is our ability to be able to tolerate opinions we do not agree with, to tolerate diversity, to tolerate the aspiration for a people to be able to express themselves even when we disagree. That is what is different about the United States. Thanks to our Constitution, we are the leading proponent on the face of the planet for the greatest experiment in freedom set forth in words and in practice. At the end of our national anthem we sing, with hand over chest, to the flag: ``land of the free and home of the brave.'' If this amendment passes, make no mistake about it, we will be a little less free and we will be a little less brave. Ivan Warner, an American soldier who was imprisoned by the North Vietnamese from 1967 to 1973, wrote: I remember one interrogation where I was shown a photograph of some Americans protesting the war by burning a flag. ``There,'' the officer said. ``People in your country protest against your cause. That proves you are wrong.'' And this prisoner of war, not knowing if he would ever be returned to America or whether he would be tortured for what he said, said: ``No. That proves that I am right. In my country we are not afraid of freedom, even if it means that people disagree with us.'' The officer [who was interrogating him] was on his feet in an instant, his face purple with rage. He smashed his fist into the table and screamed at [Ivan] to shut up. And Ivan said: While he was ranting I was astonished to see pain, compounded by fear, in his eyes. I have never forgotten that look, nor have I forgotten the satisfaction I felt at using his tool, the picture of the burning flag, against him. In the words of Ivan Warner: We don't need to amend the Constitution in order to punish those who burn our flag. They burn the flag because they hate America and they are afraid of freedom. What better way to hurt them than with the subversive idea of freedom? Spread freedom. . . . Don't be afraid of freedom. In the final analysis, there are eight other powerful reasons for why we should not do this. They are Iran, Libya, North Korea, China, Cuba, Syria, and the Sudan. And of the many nations--there are about 30-plus of them--that have laws about not burning the flag--even a few of our friends--none of them have a constitution that prohibits it. I do not think the United States of America ought to join those countries, including Iraq under Saddam Hussein, the South Africa of apartheid, and Nazi Germany. So I ask my fellow Senators, are we really that frightened of somebody's willingness to go out and be stupid? In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid. You have a right to go out and do something that every one of us thinks is dishonorable or unacceptable. And communities can punish those people in any number of ways. I have voted previously for a statute in the U.S. Senate because I believe a statute is enforceable and does less violence to the Constitution. And there are plenty of ways for prosecutors--on disturbance of the peace or destruction of personal property or any other numbers of ways--to prosecute people. But, in the end, a community of Americans, whose love of flag is so great, is going to ostracize anybody who engages in that kind of behavior. Communities have the ability to make sure they do not get jobs, to make sure they are persona non grata within the community. It is unbelievable to me, with only two flags we know of being burned in this last year--something like eight or so in the last 365 days in America--that this prompts Senators to feel they have to change the Constitution for the first time and the first amendment for the first time. I think it is wrong. I think our country is bigger than that, and I hope our colleagues in this institution will be today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity today to recognize Bishop Preston Warren Williams II, a man of faith and conviction and a leader in the African Methodist Episcopal Church. I am privileged to extend my congratulations to Bishop Williams as he assumes the role of president of the Council of Bishops. This role requires an extraordinary person, one of both strength and distinction, and the AME Church has found one in Bishop Williams. Bishop Williams, along with his wife Mother Wilma Delores Webb-Williams as Episcopal Supervisor, have been dedicated public servants and tireless advocates for at-risk youth of the 7th district. I am confident that Bishop Williams' leadership will enrich the entire AME community. The AME Church has an unwavering commitment to its members and should be commended for its special mission to strengthen the community by encouraging and supporting children. While leading the 7th District, Bishop Williams built a partnership for at-risk youth, helped lobby for a teen mentoring program, and put in place services to provide for children in poverty. When Bishop Williams served at the 17th District AME in Central Africa, membership grew by over 100,000, eventually resulting in the creation of a 20th District. Fittingly, Bishop Williams used his power and influence to bring people together and inspire hope in that part of the world. His dedication to faith and community extends beyond the church into academia. As chairman of Allen University in Columbia, SC, and member of the board of Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington, DC, Bishop Williams brings his passion and fearless leadership to our students. Bishop Williams is a spiritual leader, an activist, community leader, husband and mentor. I join with others in lauding his service, integrity, and vision.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this is obviously the most important issue facing the country today. I listened to my colleagues on the other side try to make this a debate about something that it is not about. All of us support the troops. The only question here is how do we most effectively support them. The best way to support the troops is to get this policy right. That is how we support the troops. There is nothing more disappointing than being a troop in the field and see you are doing missions that don't make sense or that the overall strategy doesn't make sense. And the record here--as the Senator from Wisconsin has said in quoting Robert Kennedy about past error justifying a perpetuation of the same--the record here is not good. Prediction after prediction after prediction has been wrong. Policy choice after policy choice after policy choice has been wrong. Young men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces have been wounded and killed because of bad policy decisions, and it is not enough to come to the floor of the Senate and insist: Oh, we have to stay the course because otherwise what our troops are doing would be lost or be in vain. What would be lost and be in vain is not to look at and think about what is happening over there and to adjust appropriately. Our troops want us and deserve for us to get this policy right. What Senator Feingold and I are offering, along with Senator Leahy and Senator Boxer, is a plan that gets it right, that helps us get on a path where we demand accountability and where we still support Iraq. Sure, we can muddle along on this course. None of us have come to the floor and said the cause is lost. None of us have suggested that we just have to walk away and leave chaos. That is not what this plan does. This plan honors the investment of our troops, and, in fact, what it does is provide a better way of not only empowering the Iraqis but of empowering the United States of America to fight a more effective war on terror. Let me say it plainly. Redeploying U.S. troops is necessary for success in Iraq, and it is necessary to be able to fight a more effective war on terror. That is why we put this program forward. Our amendment requires redeployment of American combat forces with important exceptions. At the end of the year, if, in fact, it is necessary to continue to train in order to stand up the Iraqis, we allow for that. If we need to continue to fight al-Qaida because we haven't destroyed it completely in the next year, we allow for that. And we allow, obviously, for the protection of American facilities and forces. There is no other reason to be in Iraq a year from now, other than standing up the Iraqi forces or chasing al-Qaida or protecting our facilities. So, in fact, what we are providing for is exactly what our policy ought to be, but it begins the redeployment because the fact is--and our generals have said it and every expert has said it--the large presence of American forces in Iraq is contributing to the insurgency. Why on Earth would Senators want to come to the floor and argue, Let's just stay the course and do the same old thing, when our own generals have told us the same old thing is part of the problem, the same old thing is attracting terrorists, the same old thing is losing us allies, the same old thing is costing us unbelievable sums of money and costing us lives unnecessarily? Our plan believes there is a better way to fight the war on terror and a better way to be successful in Iraq. It is different from what Senator Levin and others are offering, but it is not different in that it has every component of the plan they offer. I have heard some Senators say we don't have a plan. We have exactly the same plan that is in the Levin amendment except we go further. We maintain an over-the-horizon force to protect our security interests in the region. In addition to that, we have a date, and it is binding. I don't believe at this point in time that our troops are well served by only having a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We ought to make policy. We helped make policy that put them there, and we ought to help make the policy to help get them out of there. Let me also be clear about this, Madam President: This plan continues support for Iraq. There is no drop dead, no depart, no ultimatum. It gives them a deadline to stand up, but it provides the President the ability to continue to train if that hasn't completely happened. The fact is, this amendment permits us to accomplish the job. General Casey has said--how many times does the commanding general have to say it?--this war cannot be won militarily. The only way to do this is to bring parties together and resolve the political differences that are feeding the insurgency. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the National Security Adviser of Iraq said it this week. How many of our colleagues came over to the Senate the other day and argued about the sovereignty of Iraq? I am for the sovereignty of Iraq. The sovereignty of Iraq is respected by respecting what they are saying about themselves. Prime Minister Maliki says they will be able to take the security of 16 out of 18 provinces by the end of this year. Let's honor that. Prime Minister Maliki said getting our troops out will, in fact, legitimize the Government, it will help them. Other Iraqis and Sunnis have said that. Madam President, 94 percent of the Sunnis say the United States should set a timetable; 90 percent of the Shia say the United States should set a timetable. Are the Iraqis cutting and running on themselves by saying that? Of course not. All these comparisons with World War II are absolutely ridiculous. Of course we wouldn't set a date when we are fighting a uniformed force that has invaded other countries and we can understand how to do it. But this is not a uniformed force. These are terrorists and these are insurgents and these are criminals. These are people whom we need to fight differently. And when our own presence is adding to their ability to recruit, if we are going to be smart, we ought to think about how we are going to turn around and fight differently. I remember what it was like when we fought in a war where we were bound by a policy without thinking about how we could change it and be more effective. An awful lot of lives were lost as a result of that when policy leaders failed to change the policy and do what was necessary to win. If the Iraqis themselves keep talking about a timetable and only deadlines have worked up until this point--the deadline for the transfer of authority for the provisional government, a deadline for the Constitution. The Iraqis wanted to let it slip. We said no. We held their feet to the fire. They did the Constitution. It was the same thing with the elections. We set a deadline. We said the date will be now. They wanted to let it slide. We said no. They held the elections. I believe it is a more effective way to put America in a position of strength, in a position to fight the war on terror in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and in the other places of the world where al-Qaida is growing. Iraq has been a diversion from the real war on terror, and Iraq has weakened the United States in the world. We deserve to take a position that supports our troops by getting this policy right.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I will not object; I wish to clarify with the distinguished chairman, should we make a clarification with respect to pay raise now or when we are done?

Mr. KERRY. First of all, I join in congratulating the managers of this bill. Very quickly, Senator Hagel and I had an amendment with respect to the pay raise of the troops. The House has raised the pay level by 2.7 percent. In this bill, there is a 2.2-percent raise. Senator Hagel and I sought to equal what the House did and raise it across the board, but it is our understanding that the committee has made the determination, in consultation with people in the services, the needs of the services, that there is a particular problem with respect to retention of noncommissioned officers. Instead of taking that .5 percent differential and spreading it throughout the services, it is the intention of the committee on the Senate side to try to address the retention issue and put that money into noncommissioned officers. If that is the understanding, I think Senator Hagel and I, for that reason, will pull back our amendment, and we agree to support the position of the Senate.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Just to make certain that we are covering the time--and I am not sure we will use it--I certainly would want to reserve an hour for each.

Mr. KERRY. Two hours and 20 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator asked me how much time we needed. Whether it is before someone answers or not is something that can be worked out. That is the time we need.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we agreed that since these two Senators are under a timeline difficulty, we would try to accommodate them. Could we have the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Illinois each speak for 10 minutes?

Mr. KERRY. At that point I would hope that Senator Feingold and I would have an opportunity to introduce the amendment itself.

Mr. KERRY. As I said, we would like 30 minutes each, and then we will come back afterwards.

Mr. KERRY. We won't even introduce the amendment, if we don't do that.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will cede my time to Senator Feingold now, Senator Boxer can go, and I will go afterwards. I will just flip with Senator Feingold.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 4442, and I yield 30 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is a very important week in the Senate. For much of the week our focus has been on the war in Iraq--a necessary debate that is long overdue. But, today our focus is on a different kind of war: the war on poverty. Since President Bush took office, the number of Americans living in poverty has increased by 5.4 million, and today 37 million Americans live in poverty, 13 million of whom are children. What is even more disturbing is that over 70 percent of children in poverty live in a home where at least one parent works. So we have a situation in which today in America, millions of children are living in poverty despite the fact that they are in homes with a working adult. In fact the reality is that among full-time, year-round workers, poverty has increased by 50 percent since the late 1970s. This may be surprising, but if you take a minute to look at what is going on, it is not hard to understand. Consider a single mother of two working a minimum wage job 40 hours a week for 52 weeks a year. Without taking any time off for illness or vacation--she earns just $10,700 a year--nearly $6,000 below the Federal poverty line for a family of three. This is an outrage. And it is not how things should be in America. No American working a full time job should live below the poverty line. If you work hard and play by the rules, you should be able to make a good life for yourself and be able to get ahead. That is the American dream. Unfortunately, instead of helping people achieve the American dream, our leadership in Washington has repeatedly turned its back on them. Congress has failed to give minimum wage earners a raise in almost a decade. In fact, the real value of the minimum wage--taking into account the impact of inflation--has dropped. Since 1997 when we last raised the minimum wage, the real value of the minimum wage has fallen by 20 percent--effectively reversing all the gains made by the last increase. Never before in the history of the minimum wage have we let so much time lapse before adjusting the minimum wage. Members of Congress understand the concept of real value. After all, even though Congress has failed to increase the minimum wage since 1997, it has given itself eight annual pay raises. This is indefensible. No Member of the House or Senate should have the gumption to argue in support of a pay raise for themselves and against a pay raise for hardworking Americans. The Congress should follow the lead of the 12 States that have raised their minimum wages since January 2004. In fact, 17 States and the District of Columbia--representing 45 percent of the U.S. population-- have set minimums above the Federal rate of $5.15. The State of Washington has the highest minimum wage in the country at $7.63 as of January 1, 2006. Oregon's is $7.50. My own State of Massachusetts is considering a minimum wage of $8.25. And the city of Santa Fe, NM has a minimum wage of $9.50. Of course, not all States have taken the minimum wage so seriously. Thirty-three States have a minimum wage at or even below the Federal level. That is why we need a Federal minimum wage. The value of an hour of the same work should not vary State to State. We have a national poverty crisis, and we need a national solution. It is time for Congress to get its priorities straight. America's minimum wage isn't rising, but other basic costs for families are. Since President Bush took office, the cost of family health insurance has risen more than 70 percent, or an average of $4,500 per family. Six million more Americans are uninsured because they cannot afford coverage. Since President Bush took office, gas prices have more than doubled. In many places the price of gas exceeds $3.00 per gallon--something many working Americans have to buy just to get to work. In my home State of Massachusetts working families have faced gas price increases of $1.41 a gallon--a 94 percent increase. Yet rather than rewarding work, the Republican leadership would rather reward oil and gas companies with sweetheart deals. Since President Bush took office, the cost of a 4-year college education has increased by nearly $8,000, or 57 percent, at public universities and nearly $21,000, 32 percent, at private universities. Yet instead of working to ensure that American families can afford to send their kids to college, our Republican leadership is more interested in working to cut $12 billion from college student aid, increasing the costs of loans; and freezing Pell grants for higher education. These are the wrong priorities. Raising the minimum wage is not just an economic issue; it is a moral issue. It is a question of values. And this is a values debate I think we need to have. The question is whether we value those who work hard and play by the rules and whether we will fight to ensure they receive a livable wage. Don't be fooled by the side-by-side amendment that my colleague from Wyoming has introduced. It does not value those who work hard and play by the rules. Yes, it increases the minimum wage by $1.10, but it is loaded with poison pills that actually decrease the number of people who are eligible for the minimum wage. It cuts overtime pay, and would deny more than 10 million workers the minimum wage, overtime pay, and equal pay rights they currently receive. Rather than giving hard- working Americans a step up, it would force many more further into poverty. That is hardly the American way. Before I end, I would like to take a moment to dispel a common myth about the minimum wage. Some argue that increasing the minimum wage will hurt small businesses. That is simply not the case. A new study from the Center for American Progress and Policy Matters in Ohio found that the ``11 States with a minimum wage above the Federal minimum wage . . . had higher rates of small business growth between 1997 and 2003.'' That is right--more growth. Small business employment in those States grew by 9.4 percent while small business employment in States with the Federal minimum wage grew by only 6.6 percent. What this report reveals is that having a higher minimum wage does not impair the growth of small businesses. This is not new news. In 1999, a Levy Institute survey of small businesses revealed that more than three-quarters of the firms surveyed said their employment practices would not be affected by an increase in the minimum wage. In fact, jobless rates fell after the last minimum- wage increase. Mr. President, it is time for us to give the working people of America the respect they deserve. It is time for Congress to give working Americans a pay raise. It is time for us to get our priorities straight. I am proud to cosponsor my colleague, Senator Kennedy's, amendment to increase the minimum wage. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting in its favor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the managers of the bill. I see no reason why we cannot proceed as we normally do in the Senate. I am happy to live by the tradition, with the distinguished manager, of going back and forth. We do have a little bit of an issue with a couple of Senators who need to attend other events. They are not going to speak very long. So what I would like to do is be able to have both of them speak. Then if I could open up, and then Senator Feingold speak. And then we would go back and forth. We have a number of speakers. I can't tell you exactly how long it is going to take now. But we are not trying to prolong it. We, obviously, have waited a significant amount of time. We were going to bring this up last week, and then we ran into this little parliamentary game that was played, wanting to go through the caucus. And now we are finally here. So I want to make sure we have an opportunity to adequately lay out and counter what has been about 6 days of both misinterpretation and misstatement about what this is and what it is not. So I am happy to manage it. I respect the willingness of the Senator from Michigan to let me do that. We will try to be as expeditious as we can.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we would need a little bit longer than that to sort of open it up if we can. Simply because I am trying to accommodate these two Senators, if we could let them speak, I think the Senator from Illinois would like 10 minutes and the Senator from Vermont would like about 10 minutes. Then I could open up. Senator Feingold, I know, wants to speak. I think he wanted to speak for about 45 minutes or more.

Mr. KERRY. So that we don't chew up all the time trying to figure out how to chew up the time, let me suggest that we agree that we have 20 minutes quickly divided between the Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Vermont. Then if Senator Feingold and I could open for the time that we need, and then it would be up to the Senator from Virginia. He obviously would want to have an appropriate amount of time to respond.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how about if we let the two Senators I mentioned proceed. Senator Feingold and I could each take 30 minutes at this point. Then they have a response. Then we can come back and respond afterwards.

Mr. KERRY. Instead of taking an hour each--I need to protect Senator Feingold's request. He is not here, and I am already compromising myself on his behalf--we would both give up a half hour to begin with, so we would take an hour and 20 minutes, and then the Senator from Virginia would have an hour or whatever he wants to respond.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, could I please have the unanimous consent request stated.