John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we already have--as the Senator knows, we have been there and there are a number of pretty substantial facilities already in Kuwait, and there are others regionally, in my judgment; and that is the purpose of this arrangement, to prepare to work on an accommodation, providing it was in the context of a larger security arrangement. What I have learned--and again, we all talk to people and try to learn as much as we can. General Zinni was saying to me the other day that he believes the Gulf States are particularly interested in some kind of a regional security arrangement because they are threatened by the instability and by the questions about Iran and the challenge to the oilfields and so forth. That is precisely the kind of issue that has to be arrived at, initially bilaterally and ultimately through this international conference. I know the Senator was willing to bet something a little while ago. I am not sure we should do that in the Senate, but I would certainly bet my reputation that, one way or the other, we are going to be ultimately having to engage in this kind of multilateral diplomacy to resolve these issues. The sooner we get about it, the better we will be in fighting this war on terror.

Mr. KERRY. No, sir. About the regional security, I said we will need ultimately to deal with the question of Iran, the oilfields, the instability in the region. I think the greater Middle East is going to require this kind of focus and attention one way or the other. As I said during the debate a moment ago, I am not somebody who suggests that we cannot make this still work out somehow. I am not in that school. But I do know that on the current path, it is going to cost more lives, more money, and it is going to cost us prolonged loss of relationship and reputation within the region and is going to set us back in terms of other interests we have. This can be done more effectively, and that is what I am here to argue for. How do we protect our security interests more effectively? How do we advance our safety and security in the world? How do we win the war on terror more effectively and stand Iraq up more effectively? I believe setting the date accomplishes all of those things.

Mr. KERRY. Yes, for the beginning of the transition. But as it makes very clear, if you get to 2 months before the end, or 3 months, and you can see the progress being made, and there is another month or so that a certain number of troops need to be stood up, or whatever, we allow that--the ability of the President to make that determination. If it is done in the best traditions of the Congress, it will be done with the consultation of the various committees and the Congress itself. And then you would have the kind of unity in the pursuit of this policy that is absent today or we would not have had this debate for the last several days. I know the chairman believes this----

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are. Senator Harkin wants to speak for a few minutes. I know Senator Feingold wants to speak.

Mr. KERRY. Senator Feingold, I understand, will not, but Senator Harkin wishes to speak.

Mr. KERRY. No, sir, I am not making that presumption, Mr. President. I am saying that unless you resolve the fundamental political tension-- the Shia don't have oil revenues. They want a strong Iraq with a central government. The Shia are well taken care of. The Kurds are happy in the north; they want to be left alone. They have oil revenues. So you have Kirkut as a major issue you have to resolve ultimately. But you have this fundamental tension between whether you are going to have this federal loose-knit structure which the Shia want, with certain individuals with strong designs on future political power in that region, or whether you are going to have a manageable entity. That is why the former counsel for Foreign Relations and Senator Biden and others have joined in this idea of partition. The only way you are going to get there--and I don't think it is a particularly viable option--is through this kind of international conference. If you don't ultimately have a resolution by the parties politically, you are going to have a civil war. They have a few months under their own Constitution to try to resolve these things. That is going to be unavoidable. I am not suggesting that the violence is going to suddenly vanish. The question is, How are you ultimately going to take away the rationale for the folks who are engaging in it? As I said, there are five different groups, and we are not dealing very effectively with it. You have criminal activity, you have Baathists, you have insurgents, Iraqi insurgents, and you have al-Qaida, and you have each of them that requires a different approach. Our military is not the answer to any of them, except al-Qaida. Al-Qaida, we can continue to prosecute with unit 145 operations and other things, and we can make that happen.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I respectfully disagree. We have a civil war today, to begin with. We have a civil war today. People are being killed in the dead of night, shackled in handcuffs, beheaded, found in basements; kids are being hauled out of buses every day. The number of sectarian incidents is many times what it was just months ago, a year ago, 2 years ago. Now, how are you going to resolve it? I don't think there is any Member of the Senate who voted to send our troops to be in the middle of a civil war. Our troops are there to bolster the Government. We are there to support that Government's ability to make it on its own. How are they going to do that? By standing up these 400,000 security people. The faster they understand they have to go out and do it, the faster the violence is going to subside. Either they make it or it ``ain't'' makeable because we cannot make it for them. That is the bottom line that people have to understand.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there are few people in the Senate for whom I have more respect and affection than the Senator from Virginia. We have known each other a long time, and we have traveled together. I am grateful to him for the respect and consideration he has shown for this debate this evening. When I heard those two guys were captured, my heart sank because I immediately envisioned the worst. The worst happened. I thought about them throughout that time period, until they were found. I was not surprised that they were brutalized in the most horrific, disgraceful way, and may I add--and I know the Senator knows this--in ways that contravene every law of warfare. But I believe we have a better chance of honoring what they went there for and what all of our soldiers have died for, given something for, if we adopt a policy of reality. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator that I went to serve in Vietnam in 1968. There was turmoil in this country. Remember the Chicago convention, remember McCarthy, and Bobby Kennedy had been killed in June. In fact, I arrived back in Long Beach, CA, at the dock after the first deployment in the Gulf of Tonkin the night he was killed. It was the first radio words we heard. I remember that turmoil over the war. I remember Richard Nixon running for President with a secret plan for peace. I remember how people invested in the concept of peace. Years later, we read in Robert McNamara's book how he knew, as Secretary of Defense, while he was sending troops over there, that we weren't going to be successful. Now, from 1968 until 1975, when we left in that dramatic helicopter moment off the embassy, almost half of the people who died were lost in that period of time--for a policy that our leaders knew wasn't working. I am not going to be a Member of the Senate in good standing and in good conscience and support a policy in Iraq that I believe is going to add people to whatever Iraqi memorial will be created, at a time where I am convinced this isn't going to work for them and it is not going to work for the Iraqis. I believe we have a moral responsibility to those soldiers who died to do our best to get it right, and I just don't believe staying the course, more of the same, is getting it right. If you don't resolve the differences between Shia and Sunni where 98 percent of this fight is taking place, we are stuck. And I believe it is only by pushing the process, by demanding something of everybody in the region, by demanding something of the Iraqis who are in uniform that we are going to properly defend the honor of those who served. We defend it by getting it right. And may I add, we also defend it by honoring those who come back. There is a $6 billion shortfall in current services in our VA budget. That is just unacceptable. We have a big job to do. I look forward to working with the Senator to do it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, they are drawn down. There is a huge debate in Great Britain. They are prepared to draw down. They are ready.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I can just say, again, I repeat, this plan is a plan to be successful. It is a plan to strengthen all of our efforts in the war on terror. I have been to Great Britain. I have met with the leaders there. I know there are people there who believe we can do a better job in the war on terror, and I know they know the price they are paying for standing by us at this moment. I believe this is a better way to actually fight the war on terror than we are doing today. If you accept that premise, you approach this differently. I think a lot of other countries believe it, too. All you have to do is look at the record of what is happening with respect to countries in the region, the number of incidents, the number of terrorists, the increase of al-Qaida. You can run down the list. Al- Qaida is in 60 to 80 countries. Osama bin Laden is still running around the mountains of northwest Pakistan or Afghanistan. The fact is, one of the reasons we saw happen what happened probably is that it is a quick statement by the folks out there that: You may have got Zarqawi, but we are still around. The fundamental problem remains the same. The Iraqis will not tolerate foreign jihadists--jihadists, actually I have been told, is not a great way to refer to them because it actually confers more of a God-given effort to them, and they don't deserve it. They are terrorists, they are just foreign terrorists, and we ought to quit giving them jihadists. But the fact is, they are not going to survive in Iraq if these security forces take hold and the Government stands up. I believe, as the Senator does, that we want that Government to stand up. I think the best way to stand it up is shift the responsibility to it. And from all indications, they believe that, too. National Security Adviser al-Rubaie wrote in the Washington Post that we ought to withdraw the American troops; it will help us in the streets of Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki says they are prepared to take over. He said: You could probably have well under 100,000 troops by the end of this year, and we are talking about a year from now. This is reasonable beyond compare, and besides, it allows the President to make the decision of what we need to finish standing them up. A lot of people object to that, but I think it is smart. And it allows us to continue to use special forces against al-Qaida. That is exactly how we got Zarqawi. I think this is, as I said many times--incidentally, Secretary Melvin Laird broke a 30-year silence and wrote in ``Foreign Affairs'' that we have to get our forces out of there and reduce the numbers because they are contributing to the occupation and to the insurgency. All you have to do is talk to any leader in the region and they will tell you we are working as our own worst partner by this large presence of American troops which is acting as a poster recruitment for terrorism.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is why we maintain over-the-horizon capacity. That is why we allow the finishing of the training of the Iraqis to stand up. Look, whether it is the plan of the President or this plan, both of them are operating on some element of faith that hopefully the Government is going to stand up. If it doesn't, we all got a problem. What we have here is one resolution--I keep hearing people come to the floor and saying they are definitely against an indefinite presence in Iraq, but they are indefinitely against being definite about it. You can't have it both ways. Either you are going to push this process or we are locked in the current paradigm. Does my colleague think the current paradigm is going to do it? It may, but I am saying this for the last time: If it does, it will be at a greater cost in American life; it will be at a greater cost in dollars; it will be at a greater cost to the war on terror; it will be at a greater cost to our reputation in the region; and I believe there is a better way to get this done.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the only speaker remaining on our side now is the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KERRY. Can we enter into a unanimous consent agreement so we know what is happening?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the final, concluding comments this evening be made by the Senator from Alabama, followed by the Senator from Iowa, at which time I believe the Senate will adjourn; is that accurate?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, if I could inquire, I agree with the minority manager of the bill, there is a question about what the amendment might be about. If it comes precloture or postcloture, postcloture it makes no difference. If it is precloture and it is about Iraq, I think the Senator from Michigan and others would then have an interest in being able to respond to whatever that amendment is. I say to the distinguished manager, the Senator from Virginia--and it is his right, and we are very happy to have him acknowledge that right to put that amendment in--we would want to have time, obviously, to debate it and respond to it, conceivably. The question is whether it is precloture or postcloture. I ask the Presiding Officer if the Senator from Virginia intends to offer whatever amendment he does immediately after cloture or precloture?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor and express my strong support for the YouthBuild Transfer Act which will preserve and extend the YouthBuild Program by transferring its operations from Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to the Department of Labor, DOL. Last year, President Bush's budget request recommended transferring the operations of the YouthBuild Program from HUD to DOL. In November 2005, I introduced the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2005, S. 1999, to authorize that transfer, and it is very similar to this legislation being introduced today. I express my appreciation to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Enzi and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for their work in developing this consensus legislation. I also thank Senator DeWine for his efforts in both developing this legislation and for his efforts to obtain funding for YouthBuild for many years. I believe this bill continues the bipartisan spirit which has been the hallmark of the YouthBuild Program. Poverty, neglect, abuse, and deprivation of all kinds can prevent people from reaching their true potential. Many of those who have fallen off track, suffered losses, and made mistakes can recover. If given the opportunity, they can learn to cope with obstacles and care effectively about themselves, their families, and their communities. YouthBuild helps young people who have lost their way to turn their lives around. YouthBuild is a uniquely comprehensive program that offers at-risk youth an immediate productive role rebuilding their communities. While attending basic education classes for 50 percent of program time, students also receive job skills training in the construction field, personal counseling from respected mentors, a supportive peer group with positive values, and experience in civic engagement. They build houses for homeless and low-income people while earning their own GED or high school diploma. YouthBuild is built on success. During the 1960s, YouthBuild's future founder, Dorothy Stoneman, formed the Youth Action Program to rebuild homes in New York City. The successful renovation of an East Harlem tenement led to a citywide coalition and in 1990, led to YouthBuild USA, an organization created to replicate this program around the Nation. After visiting a YouthBuild site, I introduced legislation in 1992 authorizing Federal funding for YouthBuild through the Department of Housing and Urban Development which was enacted into law as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. Since then, I have led a coalition of Senators in support of Federal funding for this important program. The $600 million that has been appropriated through HUD since fiscal year 1993 has leveraged over $1.5 billion of additional public and private investment at the local level due to the resourcefulness of local leaders and the high demand for YouthBuild programs. The results have been dramatic. Since 1994, YouthBuild has helped more than 60,000 disadvantaged youth into productive employment, higher education, and civic engagement across the Nation. At the same time, YouthBuild has helped rebuild low- and moderate-income communities by creating more than 15,000 units of affordable housing. Over 1,000 local organizations, in every State, have applied for HUD funds to bring YouthBuild to their communities. Research on 900 YouthBuild graduates, several years after they had completed the program showed that more than 75 percent of them were either employed at an average wage of $10 an hour or attending college and were positively contributing to their communities. Of those who had committed felonies, the recidivism rate was a strikingly low 15 percent and all studies to date have shown a recidivism rate below 20 percent strikingly lower than the 60 percent recidivism rate for most prison systems. Today there are over 226 YouthBuild programs in 43 States engaging 8,000 young adults, and the number of programs could easily be expanded. Last year alone, 260 communities were denied YouthBuild funding. The demand is equally great from young people--in 2003 local programs turned away over 10,000 applicants solely for lack of funds, and in 2004 they turned away 12,000. The 20 percent cut suffered for fiscal year 2006 could cause the closing of 25 local programs; if the funds are restored and expanded, some of these closings can be averted. I am hopeful that the YouthBuild Transfer Act will be enacted into law. However, YouthBuild must continue to receive Federal funds in fiscal year 2007 in order to remain a successful program. President Bush included $50 million for YouthBuild in his fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress. Senator DeWine and I have sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee in support of $90 million for the program. I look forward to working with the members of the Appropriations Committee to insure that this critical program receives an increase in Federal funding next year. Increasing Federal funding for YouthBuild will help address critical national problems that cost society dearly. Over 32 percent of America's youth are dropping out of high school with no prospect of becoming gainfully employed, contributing members of society, taxpayers, and in inner-city communities, that percentage- rises toward 50. States are spending $36,000 per year per person to house 365,000 16 to 24 year olds, 65 percent of whom have dropped out of high school. In addition, the construction industry is short 80,000 workers. Furthermore, in the aftermath of Katrina, the need for construction workers is increasing, and YouthBuild programs are a resource in the gulf, sending trained crews to Mississippi to rebuild homes as part of their service to the Nation. YouthBuild is also on the cutting edge of education reform for dropouts and effective re-entry for offenders. Forty YouthBuild programs have now been chartered by their States or authorized by their superintendent of schools to provide high school diplomas and to receive public funds as successful public schools reclaiming high school dropouts. In several States, the criminal justice departments are now supplementing HUD funds to expand capacity of YouthBuild programs as successful re-entry programs for ex-offenders. To maximize the investment already made in YouthBuild as a resource for education of dropouts and reentry of ex-offenders, it is imperative to keep the foundation of its Federal funding strong. I ask all of my colleagues to support the YouthBuild Transfer Act to allow the YouthBuild Program to expand this unique comprehensive program to provide at-risk youth an immediately productive role rebuilding their communities.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to cosponsor and express my strong support for the YouthBuild Transfer Act which will preserve and extend the YouthBuild Program by transferring its operations from Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, to the Department of Labor, DOL. Last year, President Bush's budget request recommended transferring the operations of the YouthBuild Program from HUD to DOL. In November 2005, I introduced the YouthBuild Transfer Act of 2005, S. 1999, to authorize that transfer, and it is very similar to this legislation being introduced today. I express my appreciation to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Chairman Enzi and the ranking member, Senator Kennedy, for their work in developing this consensus legislation. I also thank Senator DeWine for his efforts in both developing this legislation and for his efforts to obtain funding for YouthBuild for many years. I believe this bill continues the bipartisan spirit which has been the hallmark of the YouthBuild Program. Poverty, neglect, abuse, and deprivation of all kinds can prevent people from reaching their true potential. Many of those who have fallen off track, suffered losses, and made mistakes can recover. If given the opportunity, they can learn to cope with obstacles and care effectively about themselves, their families, and their communities. YouthBuild helps young people who have lost their way to turn their lives around. YouthBuild is a uniquely comprehensive program that offers at-risk youth an immediate productive role rebuilding their communities. While attending basic education classes for 50 percent of program time, students also receive job skills training in the construction field, personal counseling from respected mentors, a supportive peer group with positive values, and experience in civic engagement. They build houses for homeless and low-income people while earning their own GED or high school diploma. YouthBuild is built on success. During the 1960s, YouthBuild's future founder, Dorothy Stoneman, formed the Youth Action Program to rebuild homes in New York City. The successful renovation of an East Harlem tenement led to a citywide coalition and in 1990, led to YouthBuild USA, an organization created to replicate this program around the Nation. After visiting a YouthBuild site, I introduced legislation in 1992 authorizing Federal funding for YouthBuild through the Department of Housing and Urban Development which was enacted into law as part of the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act. Since then, I have led a coalition of Senators in support of Federal funding for this important program. The $600 million that has been appropriated through HUD since fiscal year 1993 has leveraged over $1.5 billion of additional public and private investment at the local level due to the resourcefulness of local leaders and the high demand for YouthBuild programs. The results have been dramatic. Since 1994, YouthBuild has helped more than 60,000 disadvantaged youth into productive employment, higher education, and civic engagement across the Nation. At the same time, YouthBuild has helped rebuild low- and moderate-income communities by creating more than 15,000 units of affordable housing. Over 1,000 local organizations, in every State, have applied for HUD funds to bring YouthBuild to their communities. Research on 900 YouthBuild graduates, several years after they had completed the program showed that more than 75 percent of them were either employed at an average wage of $10 an hour or attending college and were positively contributing to their communities. Of those who had committed felonies, the recidivism rate was a strikingly low 15 percent and all studies to date have shown a recidivism rate below 20 percent strikingly lower than the 60 percent recidivism rate for most prison systems. Today there are over 226 YouthBuild programs in 43 States engaging 8,000 young adults, and the number of programs could easily be expanded. Last year alone, 260 communities were denied YouthBuild funding. The demand is equally great from young people--in 2003 local programs turned away over 10,000 applicants solely for lack of funds, and in 2004 they turned away 12,000. The 20 percent cut suffered for fiscal year 2006 could cause the closing of 25 local programs; if the funds are restored and expanded, some of these closings can be averted. I am hopeful that the YouthBuild Transfer Act will be enacted into law. However, YouthBuild must continue to receive Federal funds in fiscal year 2007 in order to remain a successful program. President Bush included $50 million for YouthBuild in his fiscal year 2007 budget request to Congress. Senator DeWine and I have sent a letter to the Senate Appropriations Committee in support of $90 million for the program. I look forward to working with the members of the Appropriations Committee to insure that this critical program receives an increase in Federal funding next year. Increasing Federal funding for YouthBuild will help address critical national problems that cost society dearly. Over 32 percent of America's youth are dropping out of high school with no prospect of becoming gainfully employed, contributing members of society, taxpayers, and in inner-city communities, that percentage- rises toward 50. States are spending $36,000 per year per person to house 365,000 16 to 24 year olds, 65 percent of whom have dropped out of high school. In addition, the construction industry is short 80,000 workers. Furthermore, in the aftermath of Katrina, the need for construction workers is increasing, and YouthBuild programs are a resource in the gulf, sending trained crews to Mississippi to rebuild homes as part of their service to the Nation. YouthBuild is also on the cutting edge of education reform for dropouts and effective re-entry for offenders. Forty YouthBuild programs have now been chartered by their States or authorized by their superintendent of schools to provide high school diplomas and to receive public funds as successful public schools reclaiming high school dropouts. In several States, the criminal justice departments are now supplementing HUD funds to expand capacity of YouthBuild programs as successful re-entry programs for ex-offenders. To maximize the investment already made in YouthBuild as a resource for education of dropouts and reentry of ex-offenders, it is imperative to keep the foundation of its Federal funding strong. I ask all of my colleagues to support the YouthBuild Transfer Act to allow the YouthBuild Program to expand this unique comprehensive program to provide at-risk youth an immediately productive role rebuilding their communities.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. I understand that. I ask the indulgence of the Senator if, after he has finished his business, I could just have a moment.

Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to have 5 minutes. I thought the concept of ``a moment'' was not incomprehensible even in the Senate.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say if I may, earlier today, the distinguished chairman and manager of this legislation came to me and asked me if I was prepared to put my amendment in. I told him then, as he knows, that I said no, because a number of Members were talking, as is the right of the Senator with respect to any amendment filed. So the chairman, the manager, was on notice that we were, in fact, in the process of working on this. I voted no on this because any Senator reserves that right, No. 1; and No. 2, this is a debate I look forward to. This is a debate I want to have on the floor of the Senate. This is a debate we will have on the floor of the Senate. I resent the fact that some Senators think the business of the United States is somehow better done by calling up another Senator's amendment, that may or may not be the language presented to the Senate, and having a fictitious vote on it. It is not unlike the war itself where we are in the third war: The first being about Saddam Hussein and weapons of mass destruction; the second being about al-Qaida; and the third, now, the sectarian violence. I look forward to having a debate on the floor of the Senate. But I look forward to having a debate on the language that I, as a U.S. Senator, present to the Senate in an amendment that bears my name and the name of other Senators that joined me. That has always been the prerogative of the Senator, and it is one that ought to be protected. I respect and I understand completely what the distinguished minority leader did. He did it in consultation with me. I think it was the appropriate measure for him to take to protect my interests and the interests of those on our side. The Senate ought to give a more appropriate kind of seriousness of purpose to debate of this kind of consequence. This will be the first time in some time that we will have debated this issue. I suggest some of my colleagues go back and reread the resolution which gave the President the authority to go into Iraq. There is nothing in that resolution that gives authority for what we are doing today. So, in effect, this is a war of evolution, a war of transformation, and it deserves the kind of serious debate that it will get next week in the Senate. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, today we are debating repeal of the estate tax. Many of us have supported reform to the estate tax in a reasonable way that will help families keep their small businesses and farms. But this debate about repeal of the estate tax has become unreasonable and fiscally irresponsible. Some in the Republican majority are calling for full and permanent repeal of the estate tax and have referred to the estate tax as ``immoral'' and ``vicious.'' I disagree. Only very wealthy Americans will benefit from the proposal before us today. It is a proposal that does not reward work, entrepreneurship, or innovation. I also wonder why we are debating this today. The estate tax debate was postponed last fall because of Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans is still recovering and all signs point to the region being in dire need of more Federal assistance in the months to come. I believe it is still an inappropriate time to debate the estate tax. Congress just passed a $70 billion tax cut that will give those with an income of $1 million an average tax cut of $43,000. Additionally, we have had troops in Afghanistan since October of 2001 and in Iraq since March of 2003. This is a time for sacrifice, not time for another debt financed tax cut for the richest Americans. Congress is not sending the right message by debating the repeal of the estate tax when soldiers are risking their lives and many citizens are still left homeless by Hurricane Katrina. The estate tax is simply the wrong priority. Only a few wealthy Americans will benefit from repeal of the estate tax, but it will harm many. Repeal hurts tens of millions of Americans by shifting even more of the tax burden from those who hold wealth to those who work day in and day out to earn a paycheck. Since the proposal is not paid for, it hurts our children and grandchildren by creating billions in debt and interest that they will have to pay for. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the total cost of repealing the estate tax for a decade would be nearly a trillion dollars. This revenue could be well spent on essential initiatives such as rebuilding the areas devastated by Hurricane Katrina, our national defense, children's health care, equitable tax reform or paying down the debt. Repeal of the estate tax hurts millions of working families who need Congress to resolve far greater problems in our tax code, like the punishing and expanding alternative minimum tax, AMT. The AMT is levied on taxpayers merely because they have children and happen to live in particular States. Yet according to the majority leader, the estate tax--which is levied on individuals who will inherit at least several million dollars--is the ``cruelest and most unfair tax.'' I don't see the logic in that argument and I am confident the American people can see through it as well. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle argue that estate tax repeal is needed to help small businesses, but I bet you would not hear them discuss a provision in H.R. 8 that will result in increased capital gains taxes for small firms. Under current law when a person inherits an asset, they receive a ``step-up'' in basis. This means that the person inheriting the assets receives a tax basis increased to fair market value at time of death. When the person sells the property, he or she is only taxed on the difference between the sales price and the fair market value at the date of death. H.R. 8 would limit the amount of assets that are eligible for step-up basis. Assets exceeding $1.3 million would receive ``carryover'' basis under which the heirs receive the same basis as the deceased owner. Assets of up to $4.3 million transferred to a spouse will receive step- up basis. Carryover basis usually results in higher capital gains taxes because tax will be owed on the difference between the sales price and the basis that the decedent had in the asset. Certain assets will no longer have step-up basis which gives heirs a basis equal to the fair market value at time of death. This change in basis will result in a greater difference between the sale price and the heir's basis. I agree that Congress should address the estate tax in the coming years, but we need to keep in mind that the current uncertainty was created by the majority's unsound tax policy. It is because of the Republican tax policies that the estate tax is now set to disappear in 2010 and then return to its previous levels in 2011. We tried in the past to make estate tax relief permanent. In 2002, we proposed exempting estates of up to $4 billion and permanently reducing the top rate to 45 percent, but that was not acceptable to advocates for full repeal. Now the Republican majority points to the problems they created with earlier tax cuts as justification for repealing the estate tax-- creating further problems, greater inequity, and more debt. According to a July 2005 Congressional Budget Office, CBO, report, very few farms and small businesses will pay the estate tax if it is set at a reasonable level. The CBO report shows that if the exemption is set at $2 million, only 123 farms and 135 family-owned businesses would have taxable estates and even fewer would have insufficient liquidity to pay the estate tax. Even if one disagrees with the CBO report, we should all be able to agree that raising the exemption amount helps small business and farms. Proposals that exempt inheritances above $3.5 million would overwhelmingly benefit those who own stocks and other securities and really have nothing to do with helping family farms or businesses. If the exemption is increased to $3.5 million, only 0.3 percent of all estates would be affected. Many of these assets have never been taxed, given that assets of wealthy estate frequently include stocks that have never been taxed. Often it is argued that the estate tax needs to be repealed to assist small businesses. There is no concrete evidence that a family-run business has been put out of business by the estate tax. If the AMT is not addressed it will hurt many more small businesses, but instead of addressing it, Republicans prefer to promote the myth that the estate tax shatters small businesses. At a time when income inequality is increasing, the estate tax should not be the priority of the Senate. According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the average net worth of an American family grew 6.3 percent while the bottom 40 percent of families' median net worth fell. When President Theodore Roosevelt advocated an estate tax nearly a century ago, he argued that, the ``man of great wealth owes a peculiar obligation to the state, because he derives special advantage from the mere existence of government.'' He further advocated, ``We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality, which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far as is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service.'' We should heed the words of President Roosevelt and vote against estate tax repeal. We need to return to a tax system of fairness and equity. Our tax system should reward work and create wealth for more people; it should not be skewed to the wealthiest among us. We need to work together to find a solution to the estate tax which reflects the reality of our fiscal situation and provides certainty for hard-working families.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, earlier this year Boston lost a legendary political organizer, Mr. Ray Dooley, whose passion and intelligence lifted Massachusetts and everyone who worked with him. I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I delivered at his memorial service be printed in the Record: The information follows. Anne, Catroina, Conor, and Brian, in the time since your husband and father was taken from all of us, but especially was taken too soon from you who loved him best and needed him most, people across Massachusetts and Ireland have rightfully remembered Ray's social conscience, his decency, his strength, his wisdom, and his judgment. Each of these qualities of character ought to be especially celebrated because they are as suddenly rare in public life as they were abundant in Ray Dooley. But they don't tell us the something about Ray which brought so many of us in this room together time and again, from movements to end an unjust war, to the march for civil rights, to Ray Flynn and City Hall, to hard fought, bare knuckled Senate races in 1984 and 1996 in which Ray took center stage. I know better than anyone that they wouldn't have ended in victory without him. Ray lived out what Winston Churchill's political right hand R.A. Butler knew: ``Politics is largely a matter of heart.'' But more than that even, Ray Dooley taught a generation of politicians and political organizers that idealists could be tough as nails--and that there was nobility in fighting your heart out on the political field. He shattered anyone's illusion that liberals were fuzzy headed bleeding hearts out of the Ivy Tower who floated above the fray. Ray was never defensive about being `in politics'--he was proud of it, he wore his passion for the game on his sleeve. He was gutsy, determined, and in the finest sense of the phrase, a true believer. Ray showed us all how to win a campaign and keep your conscience. Harry Truman, who rose through the ranks came of age of Kansas City's Pendergast machine, was once asked if he minded being referred to all his life as a `politician' while others were called `statesman.' Truman laughed and said `they only call you a statesman when you're gone.' I have no doubt Ray would prefer to be remembered as a political organizer--for he was one of the best and he gave his talent not only for his candidates--and what a difference he made for us--but for the common good. And what a difference that made for our city, our state, and our country. Ray had steadiness, toughness, and a willingness to ruffle feathers-- along with the force of character to tell candidates when they're wrong. More than once he said to me: ``John, cut the b.s.'' Ray, I hope I've finally learned. He knew that in politics you can't make everyone happy and he saw those on the other side as opponents, but never enemies. He fiercely wanted to defeat them, but never to destroy them. He also had grit, and an instinct for when to tell a loud mouth to pipe down, finally giving a reluctant activist at the end of the table the confidence to speak up--and speak out. It was leadership, the art of politics at its best; he was a man who lived for others. No, Ray was never afraid to be `in politics' because he knew it was politics that got things done for the people whose cares were his cause--for the poor who lacked decent housing, for a city divided over race, for women and gays and lesbians who only ask for the freedom to be who they are, for workers who deserve decent wages, and, in Ireland, for children whose rights and dignity had to be respected. It wasn't cheering things on as they were that made the progress Ray demanded, it wasn't high fallutin words that got these things done, it was politics--it was deal-making--it was Ray Dooley and the language was Dooley-speak. Ray was a kind of quiet Pied Piper not unlike our old friend Michael Ventresca. He loved underdogs. Tom Gallagher wasn't supposed to win, but Ray proved the wise-guys wrong. Ray Flynn wasn't supposed to win, but Dooley proved them wrong again. And I wasn't supposed to win--but Ray believed, and I'm glad that together we proved him right. And in all these underdog fights, he loved being an odd couple political matchmaker. It was Dooley and the best kind of politics in 1983 and 1984 that surprised many and puzzled some when he helped to bring Ray Flynn and me together. It was Dooley who made it possible for Susan Tracy to stand at the Jackson Mann School on primary day 1984 when Ray's first victorious candidate Tom Gallagher came to my aid. It was Ray who knew what it would mean to have a red ink stamp on all the Kerry lit that read ``endorsed by Rep. Tom Gallagher.'' That was Ray Dooley. It was the same Dooley style politics that showed up in Iowa in 2004--when suddenly local reporters starting hearing about nuns phonebanking voters in Dubuque as part of Catholics for Kerry. I don't envy the Bush supporter on the receiving end of that phone call! That's how Ray Dooley won grassroots races: one house, one block, and one precinct at a time. In an era when the art of politics is abused by some in the profession and cynically dismissed by some in the press, it's important to remember--Ray showed how to do it right and for the right reasons. Ray lived up to the words of John Kennedy--that politics is an ``honorable profession.'' To Ray it was the worthiest of endeavors, a joyful profession. And through all the turbulence and temptations, he was always above all something he prized in others--a man of honor. But Ray wasn't just an individual force; he leaves behind an army he enlisted to carry on his mission. He built a farm team of political professionals who have become All Stars while staying true to progressive causes. They carry a whole lot of Ray with them in the hopes and energy that fuels the work of Mary Beth Cahill, Patty Foley, Michael Whouley, Joe Newman, Kevin Honan, Susan Tracy, Marie Turley, Howard Leibovitz, and John Giesser. Anne, Catroina, Conor, and Brian miss Ray in a way beyond measure; but his political family here in America also misses a friend, a mentor, a surrogate father and adopted brother. With his humor, his doggedness, and his rare qualities of insight, Ray fought and won great political battles. Campaign manager, chief strategist, conscience--he was all this and more in politics. And he was every bit as talented, committed, and resourceful in searching out treatments for his illness while always thinking about how medical science could help improve treatment for future cancer patients. He saved his hardest fight for the race in which he was the ultimate underdog. With humor, he laughed at his own mortality, sustaining those around him. Others might have reasonably given up, but not Ray. Why give in to the long odds of beating a tough cancer when long odds had never stopped him before? Knocked on his ass, Ray Dooley dusted himself off and kept punching. And each of us could learn a lot from that too. So: our friend Ray was many things: an activist, a shameless idealist, an unapologetic progressive, a self-proclaimed liberal, a humanitarian, and a globalist in the best sense of the word. But it would be a mistake if his passing from man to unforgettable memory made any of us forget that Anne's husband, the father of Catroina, Conor, and Brian, was also the tough, go-to, level-headed, street-smart strategic leader who lived and breathed politics in this proudly political city--and in Dooley-speak, he was damned good at it. Ray, we gather here now one last time as your legion of lifelong friends. Tomorrow and tomorrow, we will miss--you and so will the world, for the injustices you would've righted, the hurts you would have healed, and the great clashes that would've summoned you to arms. Your legacy is a generation that loves politics as much as you did and fights with the same heart, conviction, and passion that are your undying gift to us, your political family. You are buried in your beloved Ireland, but for years to come your soul will be with us here in that other Irish place you loved, the city of Boston.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, June brings the beginning of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season, and according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we can expect it to be a busy one. The administration is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with as many as 4 to 6 predicted to become major hurricanes of category three strength or higher. As our gulf coast communities learned last fall, it only takes one of these storms to utterly destroy the homes, businesses and lives of millions of Americans. We owe it to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as to the unsuspecting victims of future disasters, to fix the Federal disaster loan program and build it to be responsive to the needs of disaster victims. That's why I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2006. This bill seeks to improve coordination between responding agencies in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. The priority of first responders should be addressing the needs of victims, and the laws establishing disaster response should allow for maximum agency collaboration in addressing those needs. To this end, we have directed the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate disaster assistance application periods when possible. The Small Business Administration is directed to address any inconsistencies between the Federal regulations and the administration's standard operating procedures that govern the disaster loan program.The Administrator is also directed to work to the maximum extent practicable to gain speedy access to all relevant tax records for loan applicant consideration, and when considering applications, is directed to consider an applicant's credit rating from the day prior to the disaster's occurrence. The Comptroller General is directed to study the current disaster assistance application and referral process that has resulted in an approval rate of only 35 percent of total disaster loan applicants. The Administrator is also directed to report on how this process can be improved. To increase awareness of available disaster loan assistance, the bill directs the Administrator to develop a proactive marketing plan that will get information on disaster loans in the hands of those who need it. The bill includes an additional study to be conducted by the Comptroller General on industries that may have difficulty accessing disaster loans. In addition to reauthorizing the disaster loan program for a period of 3 years beginning in 2007, this bill provides the increased capital that homeowners and small business owners need and currently have trouble accessing following a major disaster. A presidential declaration of catastrophic national disaster will allow the Administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In addition, private lenders are encouraged to make disaster loans through the 7(a) and 504 lending programs with reduced fees, and the Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans. Disaster victims are often in need of capital prior to when traditional assistance programs are available. To address this need, this bill establishes a process for providing Federal bridge loans, allowing States to redirect funding previously designated for Community Development Block Grants and use these funds to provide bridge loans and grants to disaster victims. Having this waiver in place will allow States to ensure that victims have the speedy access to capital while they wait for alternative sources of assistance. Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the Administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to nonprofit entities, including religious organizations. So that businesses are not limited during major disasters by a loan cap that is not sufficient to meet their needs, the bill increases the aggregate amount of loans available to $10,000,000 during a declared major disaster or a catastrophic national disaster. This bill strengthens the Stafford Act by requiring a 10 percent goal for local firms to participate in the recovery and reconstruction effort. The bill also encourages the utilization of expedited procurement tools for small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled, and historically underutilized businesses. Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the Administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary. The bill also allows faster payments to small firms in order to increase their ability to gain access to bonds. To make bonding more attractive to surety providers in the disaster area, the Administrator may wave fees for sureties offering bonding in the disaster area and allows the sureties to use the State-approved rates for bonds awarded in the disaster area. The bill also provides for small business development centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage small business development centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived. So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The administration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration. Many small businesses depend on the contributions of America's military reservists, and have been struggling through the months that these brave men and women have served their country through active duty. This bill authorizes the Administrator to provide grants to the smallest of these firms to assist them as they seek to remain open. Gas prices continue to soar, and fuel dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies dependent on fuel. Residents of the gulf coast continue to rebuild from last year's hurricane season, and they do so despite the slow and inadequate response from their Federal Government. By increasing access to capital for small businesses suffering as a result of a disaster, and by ensuring that Federal agencies charged with disaster response are doing their jobs in a coordinated manner that puts the needs of victims first, we can ensure that the Federal Government is better prepared to respond to future disasters.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, June brings the beginning of the 2006 Atlantic Hurricane season, and according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, we can expect it to be a busy one. The administration is predicting 13 to 16 named storms, with as many as 4 to 6 predicted to become major hurricanes of category three strength or higher. As our gulf coast communities learned last fall, it only takes one of these storms to utterly destroy the homes, businesses and lives of millions of Americans. We owe it to the victims of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Wilma, as well as to the unsuspecting victims of future disasters, to fix the Federal disaster loan program and build it to be responsive to the needs of disaster victims. That's why I am introducing the Small Business Disaster Loan Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2006. This bill seeks to improve coordination between responding agencies in the immediate aftermath of a disaster. The priority of first responders should be addressing the needs of victims, and the laws establishing disaster response should allow for maximum agency collaboration in addressing those needs. To this end, we have directed the Administrator of the Small Business Administration and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to coordinate disaster assistance application periods when possible. The Small Business Administration is directed to address any inconsistencies between the Federal regulations and the administration's standard operating procedures that govern the disaster loan program.The Administrator is also directed to work to the maximum extent practicable to gain speedy access to all relevant tax records for loan applicant consideration, and when considering applications, is directed to consider an applicant's credit rating from the day prior to the disaster's occurrence. The Comptroller General is directed to study the current disaster assistance application and referral process that has resulted in an approval rate of only 35 percent of total disaster loan applicants. The Administrator is also directed to report on how this process can be improved. To increase awareness of available disaster loan assistance, the bill directs the Administrator to develop a proactive marketing plan that will get information on disaster loans in the hands of those who need it. The bill includes an additional study to be conducted by the Comptroller General on industries that may have difficulty accessing disaster loans. In addition to reauthorizing the disaster loan program for a period of 3 years beginning in 2007, this bill provides the increased capital that homeowners and small business owners need and currently have trouble accessing following a major disaster. A presidential declaration of catastrophic national disaster will allow the Administrator to offer economic injury disaster loans to adversely affected business owners beyond the geographic reach of the disaster area. In addition, private lenders are encouraged to make disaster loans through the 7(a) and 504 lending programs with reduced fees, and the Administrator is authorized to enter into agreements with private contractors in order to expedite loan application processing for direct disaster loans. Disaster victims are often in need of capital prior to when traditional assistance programs are available. To address this need, this bill establishes a process for providing Federal bridge loans, allowing States to redirect funding previously designated for Community Development Block Grants and use these funds to provide bridge loans and grants to disaster victims. Having this waiver in place will allow States to ensure that victims have the speedy access to capital while they wait for alternative sources of assistance. Non-profit entities working to provide services to victims should be rewarded and given access to the capital they require to continue their services. To this end, the Administrator is authorized to make disaster loans to nonprofit entities, including religious organizations. So that businesses are not limited during major disasters by a loan cap that is not sufficient to meet their needs, the bill increases the aggregate amount of loans available to $10,000,000 during a declared major disaster or a catastrophic national disaster. This bill strengthens the Stafford Act by requiring a 10 percent goal for local firms to participate in the recovery and reconstruction effort. The bill also encourages the utilization of expedited procurement tools for small, small disadvantaged, service-disabled, and historically underutilized businesses. Construction and rebuilding contracts being awarded are likely to be larger than the current $2 million threshold currently applied to the SBA Surety Bond Program which helps small construction firms gain access to contracts. This bill increases the guarantee against loss for small business contracts up to $5 million and allows the Administrator to increase that level to $10 million, if deemed necessary. The bill also allows faster payments to small firms in order to increase their ability to gain access to bonds. To make bonding more attractive to surety providers in the disaster area, the Administrator may wave fees for sureties offering bonding in the disaster area and allows the sureties to use the State-approved rates for bonds awarded in the disaster area. The bill also provides for small business development centers to offer business counseling in disaster areas, and to travel beyond traditional geographic boundaries to provide services during declared disasters. To encourage small business development centers located in disaster areas to keep their doors open, the maximum grant amount of $100,000 is waived. So that Congress may remain better aware of the status of the administration's disaster loan program, this bill directs the administration to report to the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship of the Senate and to the Committee on Small Business of the House of Representatives regularly on the fiscal status of the disaster loan program as well as the need for supplemental funding. The administration is also directed to report on the number of Federal contracts awarded to small businesses, minority-owned small businesses, women-owned businesses, and local businesses during a disaster declaration. Many small businesses depend on the contributions of America's military reservists, and have been struggling through the months that these brave men and women have served their country through active duty. This bill authorizes the Administrator to provide grants to the smallest of these firms to assist them as they seek to remain open. Gas prices continue to soar, and fuel dependent small businesses are struggling with the cost of energy. This bill provides relief to small business owners during times of above average energy price increases, authorizing energy disaster loans through the Small Business Administration and the United States Department of Agriculture to companies dependent on fuel. Residents of the gulf coast continue to rebuild from last year's hurricane season, and they do so despite the slow and inadequate response from their Federal Government. By increasing access to capital for small businesses suffering as a result of a disaster, and by ensuring that Federal agencies charged with disaster response are doing their jobs in a coordinated manner that puts the needs of victims first, we can ensure that the Federal Government is better prepared to respond to future disasters.