John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to proceed for such time as I use.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have debated for years, all the years that I have been here, the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. It is stunning that an issue as controversial, as divisive as that would be put on a bill that needs to pass by unanimous consent. I know Senator Stevens and others have said we have had bills on which we have put a number of different items, such as the omnibus bill back in the days of President Clinton where we put seven or eight items on it--I forget exactly how many. But the difference is we did it with unanimity. We did not have a divided Senate over that issue. We did not have a vote. We all agreed all of those items ought to go into the bill. What is different here is the disagreement, is the division over this issue. The fact is, many of us are very passionate about this issue, so much so that the Senate has been divided by one vote. A one-vote division is being disrespected in this effort because they know the rules of the Senate would prohibit them from doing it without changing and breaking those rules. The fact is, ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, according to any definition I have ever seen, ceases to be a refuge. All the efforts to gloss over it do exactly that, they simply gloss over it. The fact is, we have heard arguments that you can somehow drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in an environmentally friendly manner. We have heard that drilling in the refuge is going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. We have heard it is going to bring down gas prices at the pump. We have even heard that it belongs in the national budget because of the revenues that are going to come from the lease sales. Every single one of those arguments fails before legitimate, honest scrutiny. First of all, by definition, an industrial zone and a wilderness cannot occupy the same space--can't do it. You can't have a wilderness and have an industrial zone. So the minute you declare ``industrial zone,'' gone is the wilderness. What has been set aside all these years since President Eisenhower, is eradicated, gone--gone for all time. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration first recognized the value of that area, and it was established to be a unique wildlife and landscape. Drilling proponents keep claiming we are only going to drill on 2,000 acres--the oil corporations. But the fact is, when you look at the plans and you examine how they go at it, in fact, the entire 1.5 million acres, the 102 area is going to be open to testing, to leasing, and exploration, and it does not happen in one compact area. That is because, as with the North Slope oilfields west of the Arctic refuge, you have the development sprawling over a very large area stretching across the Coastal Plain. According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the potential oil under the Coastal Plain is not concentrated in one large reservoir. It is put in many small deposits all across the plain. So to produce oil from this vast area, you have to create a network of pipelines and a network of roads, and all of those change the habitat of the entire Coastal Plain. I will acknowledge that new drilling technology is more efficient, and we have done wonders in many ways. It is less harmful to the environment. But the advantages with respect to this particular area have been greatly exaggerated. Even the new technology, such as directional drilling, does irrevocable damage. You have to have permanent gravel roads. You have to have busy airports for access. You have production wells that are scattered throughout the area, across more than a million acres of Coastal Plain, and you are going to have the connection of pipelines. And the entire complex is going to produce more air pollution than the city of Washington, DC. No matter how well it is done, oil development has a lasting impact on the environment. The industry itself has told us that. None other than British Petroleum said, ``We can't develop fields and keep wilderness.'' That is the oil company speaking for itself. If the facts and the frank admission of an oil company are not enough, then people ought to take a look at what the National Academy of Sciences said, and the Department of Interior, and a host of others who have come to the same conclusion. We also hear about the dependence on foreign oil. If the Arctic Wildlife Refuge produces the maximum amount of oil they say it might be able to produce, if 20 years from now it is at maximum pumping--which does nothing, obviously, to affect prices and supply today--it is possible that at best you could reduce oil imports from 62 percent to 60 percent. That is it--62 percent to 60 percent. It is not enough to affect the price of oil. It will not affect the global supply. It will not affect our dependence on the Middle East. But it will destroy the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and provide some profits to the companies that take it out in the meantime. So everybody ought to understand that in its peak year for a single year, somewhere around 2020, drilling might reduce your dependency by about 2 percent. The price of oil will not drop, the price of energy will not drop, the price of gasoline will not drop, and our vulnerability to world oil prices and to world unrest and to dangerous regimes will not change. After that single year, the flow of oil from the refuge is going to start to decline as the reserves are depleted. Also, this is a phony argument that we need to somehow be doing this now. It has nothing to do with the immediate security of our country. The fact is, 95 percent of the Alaska oil shelf is open for drilling/ leasing today--95 percent of it. There are vast areas of that shelf that are open that are still not leased, still not producing. In addition, we have the largest oilfield in the world that is unexploited, which is in the Gulf of Mexico, the deepwater drilling of the Gulf of Mexico. Those leases have already been granted. They have already been environmentally permitted, but they are not being drilled. Why? Because the price differential thus far has not brought people to do that. If we want to do something for immediate American help, provide a subsidy, provide some assistance, do something that provides an incentive so that drilling takes place now. That would have far more effect than what is happening in this Alaska argument. The bottom line: I said it again and again everywhere I went over the course of the last 2 years during the Presidential race. Every time I had a chance, I talked about how we only have 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. That is all we have in America--3 percent. The Saudis have 46 percent. The Middle East has 65 percent. There is absolutely nothing the United States of America can do to drill our way out of our predicament--our dependence on oil. We have to invent our way out of it, and inventing our way out of it means moving to alternative fuels, means pushing the curve of discovery, doing what America has always done in terms of creation of new jobs and new technologies. That is why it is a phony argument. That is the bottom line of why we don't have to be here pushing to do this on a defense bill which is important to our troops and to our country. My hope is that in the next hours perhaps we can get a measure of reasonableness. But the bottom line still remains the same. There are people who believe deeply in drilling. I understand that. I respect that, and they can talk about that belief. That it not what this vote is about. What this vote is about, in the end, is whether this effort to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ought to be allowed to circumvent the rules of the Senate and whether this is the message we want to send about the rules and how the Senate works; that nothing means anything around here as long as you can change it whenever you want. We have to remember that what goes around comes around. I don't think it is good for the Senate. I don't think this is good for this institution. I don't think it is good for a majority or a minority, one of which may be the other any day in the future, and regret this kind of this kind of effort. When we stand up for the rules, we stand up for history, we stand up for the Constitution, and we stand up for what this Constitution gives to us as an individual responsibility--each and every one of us. And when we break the rules, we send a damaging, dangerous message to the rest of our country that looks to this place--ostensibly used to look here anyway--for leadership. When you read the polls today about where the Congress is and the esteem of the American people, you ought to think twice about whether this is the way to proceed. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, knowing Jon Corzine as I think I do, if he had known he was going to have to sit through all these speeches after he spoke, he would have come down here a lot later at night, I suspect, or certainly waited until we got out of town, because that is the nature of this Senator, Governor to be. I have listened to my colleagues and I listened to his speech. He left us with some important warnings, some important pleas, which I hope colleagues will take seriously. I would incorporate into my comments about Jon all of the things Senator Sarbanes said. They were a wonderful summary of what he did and how he did it, his accomplishments. He did veterans, and he has been a passionate advocate for public transportation. He was instrumental in housing. These are the sorts of signal accomplishments you can measure, which he can point to and colleagues have, that define the few years he has been here. I say a word or two about the things that helped push him in the direction of accomplishing those goals. What has always struck me about Jon Corzine and the thing that has been singled out in a number of comments made by my colleagues is the quality of the person, almost an improbable quality when you measure it against the profession he chose for so many years. Maybe a comment about Wall Street, certainly a comment that I know Jon Corzine would articulate any number of different times in different ways, that we don't think of people traditionally, with the obvious exceptions, a Bob Rubin, some others. Jon Corzine always kept, No. 1, a great sense of idealism; No. 2, a very strong moral compass that led him to always distinguish between right and wrong; and, No. 3, an integrity about the approach to public life that willingly disclosed great wealth, willingly submitted himself to unbelievable attacks in order to pursue a greater good. Most people would shy away from that today. When you talk to people in the private sector today about running for office, they are quick to say: Do that? Why would I want to do that? Why would I want to subject myself to that? Why would I want to put myself through that scrutiny? Jon Corzine has always been driven by his sense that there is too much missing in governance today, that there is a bigger purpose than all of us individually, a noble purpose in what we are trying to achieve. He believes unabashedly that Government can be part of the solution, that Government actually helps people. And unlike so much of the rhetoric of the last years that has attacked everything Government does until you have a Katrina, when you understand why you need it, or until you see the potholes in the streets and the bridges falling apart and you begrudgingly acknowledge you need it, Jon always believes you need it proactively. He understands the good it can do. Every one of us who has had the privilege of being here for awhile was impressed by that passion and moral compass he brought to some of the issues. When business people in America were abusing their trust, Jon brought this extraordinary credibility to that debate. There are huge provisions, as Senator Sarbanes will tell us, and a great deal of guidance through that process that came from this freshman Senator. Likewise, with respect to Darfur, an issue where the country ought to be providing a sense of moral outrage, Jon doggedly and tenaciously pursued that issue without grandstanding, without trying to do it in a way that was sort of hit and run. He stayed at it and got the Senate ultimately to take some measures, though never what we ought to be doing, and the country has yet to do what he knows and understands we ought to be doing. He always has had a sense of right and wrong. The minimum wage, the incomprehensibility of us being a country where people can live out work values and you can't live, and his sense of injustice at giving a tax cut to people such as him who have been blessed with the fruits of great wealth, who understand that there is a different set of priorities, a sense of outrage that we would be cutting children off of Medicaid, and so on down the list. I am thrilled, and I know when I was privileged to be in New Jersey, I could feel it in the people of New Jersey who obviously were inundated with an onslaught of confusing and reprehensible kinds of claims in the context of a campaign, which we have seen too much of, but he plowed through that, because of that idealism and his sense of purpose for the State. Those folks are anticipating the same kind of excitement that he said in his comments he will bring to this new challenge. The people of New Jersey have chosen wisely. They are going to have a leader who will do exactly what Senator Sarbanes talked about. He has the opportunity to make that State one of the great laboratories in the country, to do what we are unsuccessful and unwilling to do too often at this moment in our history here in Washington. I almost envy him that opportunity to grab the executive reins and go out and do it. He is going to be an exceptional Governor. He is going to continue to have an impact on what Congress chooses to do because of those priorities that he sets in the State. There is no question in my mind that our caucus, which has looked to him regularly as sort of the resident expert on issues of fiscal, trade, Wall Street matters, is going to miss that expertise enormously. I thank this Senator for his service to us, to the country, and we look forward to the service he will provide as Governor of New Jersey.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the PATRIOT Act reauthorization conference report. I want to make clear that this vote was not about whether I support reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act--I do. This vote was about whether I thought that the significant and unnecessary invasions into the privacy rights of all Americans were necessary to protect our national security--I do not. Last July, the Senate passed by unanimous consent a PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. I supported that bipartisan, compromise bill. Even though it did not contain all the privacy protections I would have liked, it took a lot of steps towards improving the problems in the PATRIOT Act that have become evidence since its passage. If that bill was on the floor today, I would support it. But it is not. What we do have on the floor is a conference report that fails to address some of the most serious problems with the PATRIOT Act. For example, its version of Section 215 allows the Government to obtain library, medical, gun records, and other sensitive personal information on a mere showing that those records are relevant to an authorized intelligence investigation. That is it. Relevance is all that is required. The Senate bill, on the other hand would have established a three part test to determine whether the records have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy. This seemingly small change will help prevent investigations which invade the privacy of American citizens that may have no connection to any suspected terrorist or spy. This is an important restriction. In addition, unlike the Senate bill the conference report provides no mechanism for the recipient of a Section 215 order to challenge the accompanying automatic, permanent gag order. The FISA, Foreign Intelliegence Surveillance Act, court reviews are simply not sufficient. They have the power only to review the Government application for the underlying Section 215 order. They do not have the power to make an individualized determination about whether a gag order should accompany it. So the recipient of a Section 215 order is automatically silenced forever. How is that fair? How is that consistent with our democratic principles? The conference report doesn't provide judicial review of National Security Letters either. The Senate bill did. Judicial review is one of our best checks on unnecessary Government intrusion into individual privacy. Why deny it to our citizens? Lastly, I would like to mention the problem with the conference reports provisions on the so-called sneak-and-peek search warrants. Unlike the Senate bill, the conference report does not include any protections against these warrants. Rather than requiring that the government notify the target of these warrants within 7 days, as the Senate bill did, the conference report requires notification within 30 days of the search. Thirty days. That is an awfully long time to go before learning that you have been the subject of a Government search. These are just a few of the problems with the conference report. They are the most significant problems. Those in support know that it is flawed, but they are creating artificial time pressure to force us to approve the bill, flawed as it may be. I realize that 16 provisions of the PATRIOT Act are set to expire. I certainly do not want that to happen. But passing this conference report is not the only way to prevent their expiration. That is why I have cosponsored legislation to extend those provisions by three months to allow us time to fix the problems with the conference report. If that effort fails and the PATRIOT Act expires, the blame rests only with the White House and leadership that controls the House and the Senate. There was and remains a simple, unified way to get this done, and they rejected it. There is no reason why we cannot be safe and free. The Senate bill accomplished this. And, I will keep working with my colleagues in the Senate to ensure that whatever legislation we ultimately pass to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act also accomplishes this.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I commend Senate Finance Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Baucus for putting together a bipartisan bill that will provide tax relief to individuals and businesses who are struggling due to the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. This legislation creates a gulf opportunity zone in those areas in Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi that were hardest hit by the hurricane. Businesses operating in this zone will be eligible for specified tax breaks. In addition, the legislation provides relief to help with housing and the cost of higher education. I support providing businesses with the appropriate tax relief that will help them rebuild. However, I am concerned that this tax relief will not be helpful if we do not provide assistance to small businesses. If the assistance to small businesses continues at its present pace, tax relief will be somewhat meaningless. Currently, 74 percent of hurricane-related Small Business Administration, SBA, disaster business loan applications have not even been processed, and less than 10 percent of the approved business loans have been fully disbursed. I have introduced legislation that would allow the affected States to distribute $450 million in bridge loans to help businesses that are waiting for an SBA loan to begin rebuilding immediately. If we do not provide businesses with loans, they will not be able to rebuild and benefit from these tax incentives. I am pleased that this legislation includes a provision that would extend the current law provision that allows military personnel the option of treating certain combat pay as earned income for the purpose of computing the earned income tax credit, EITC, for 1 year. I have introduced legislation that strengthens the EITC. It includes a provision to allow permanently military personnel to elect to treat certain combat pay as income for purposes of calculating the EITC. During the debate on S. 2020, the Tax Relief Act of 2005, I along with Senator Obama offered an amendment on the EITC that would have extended this provision through 2007, but it was subject to a point of order because it included outlays. This provision should be made permanent, but it is important that we are not allowing it to expire. It is a commonsense provision that would prevent members of the armed services from losing their EITC when they are mobilized and serving their country. Military families are often faced with increased expenses when a loved one is deployed. Thousands of reservists, for example, take a cut in pay when they are called to active duty. Without this extension, several military families that are benefiting from the EITC would not longer be eligible for the credit. Eligibility for the EITC is based on income, and certain combat pay does not count as income for tax purposes. The election included in this provision would allow military personnel to choose whether they want their combat zone pay to count as income for purposes of calculating the EITC. This provision will help military families with some of their financial burdens. It does not repay the sacrifices that they are making for us, but it shows that we are supporting our troops at home as well as abroad.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, obviously somewhere in the next few days-- we don't know when yet--we are going to be wrapping up our business here, and that will mark the end of the first session of the 109th Congress. Before we leave, Members on both sides of the aisle are very concerned that we will not have provided the assistance to the small businesses in the Gulf States region that they desperately need in order to recover from the effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The effect is that literally hundreds of thousands of small businesses are in desperate need of assistance throughout that region. Without the jobs those small businesses provide, the economy of the gulf coast is going to have a much harder time coming back. Since Hurricanes Katrina and Rita hit the gulf coast, regrettably-- this has been commented on again by Senators on both sides of the aisle; it is not a partisan issue--there has been a stunningly slow response by the Administration to provide relief to small businesses. The administration has now sent up three pieces of emergency legislation--three supplemental emergency spending bills worth more than $62 billion--and yet we have not adopted any direct relief for small businesses. The latest supplemental request asks for $471 million in additional funding for SBA disaster loans and the SBA Inspector General. But, frankly, giving more money to the disaster loan program doesn't address small business needs. It's too narrow in scope and is not delivering relief with urgency. Senator Lott has talked about the problems--Senator Cochran has too-- and there is a recognition that you have a lot of small businesses that can't wait till their disaster loans are processed or disbursed. They need access to capital immediately. It is a matter of record now, commented on in many national journals, that the SBA has done a completely inadequate job--abysmal may be a better word--of getting disaster loan funds into the hands of small businesses in the gulf region. It is not because of the lack of funds or the lack of employees. The SBA has enough funding to grant $1.4 billion in disaster loans, and $249 million for administration and staff. The staffing has been increased from some 800 employees to 4,000 employees. As of Monday of this week, almost 39,000 small businesses had applied for SBA disaster loans. Yet with all of these resources, both personnel and money, only 9,200 loans have been actually processed, which is 25 percent, and only 2,600, which is 7 percent, had actually been approved. Only 240 had actually seen a disbursement of money. In addition, as of last week, the SBA had handed out only 10 of its new gulf opportunity loans the administration's answer to the business community's call for bridge loans. We were assured by the SBA Administrator several weeks ago in a bipartisan committee hearing that those loans were on track, that they would respond rapidly, that they had enough people in place, that they were going to get the money out, and, indeed, here we are with the same record that was the incentive to have that hearing in the first place. These loans, I might add, have an interest rate of as much as 13.5 percent. Why would we be providing a 13.5 percent loan to people who have been hit when you are trying to do it as a matter of disaster response? Frankly, that is beyond me. The program has generated irate complaints from the very people whom it has been set up to try to help. One small business owner who called my office referred to the SBA and FEMA as ``blackwater mercenaries.'' They feel set upon, not helped. We are not going to help the small businesses down there until we pass comprehensive small business assistance. Senators Lott and Cochran have stated that the pace of reconstruction in their home State of Mississippi and the other Gulf States is ``unacceptable.'' Despite the assertion of the administration that the Nation's ``small business sector is vibrant,'' Senator Lott has said that the slow pace of approving disaster loans ``is preventing small businesses from coming back and jobs from returning or being created. Not unexpectedly, the unemployment rates in the two largest coastal counties, Harrison and Jackson, are more than quadruple the national average.'' Senator Lott is absolutely correct, and we need to do something about it. So far, the best efforts of the Senate have been stymied. One bill passed 96-0 in the Senate during consideration of CJS. That was dropped in conference. Another bipartisan bill, S. 1807, the Small Business Hurricane Relief and Reconstruction Act, has been blocked by the White House since September 30. That is almost 2\1/2\ months. Small business owners such as Dr. Edward Lang and Dr. Angela Lang, who rushed to complete their disaster loan application in the weeks following the hurricane, believing that assistance was going to be there, have been told that everything was going to be done to help people recover. They have gone months now without hearing any response from the SBA whatsoever. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, their small but successful podiatry office based out of New Orleans was deluged with 5 feet of water. With their savings all but gone, and the ever-shrinking list of patients, all of whom have been displaced by the storm, the Langs are in dire need of assistance. They want to stay there. They want to rebuild their business there. It is essential to New Orleans that people who make that choice are empowered to be able to do so. Despite repeated offers from out-of-state hospitals, they are sticking by their plan to try to rebuild in the city they love and the place they want to work. But the cold shoulder they received from the SBA is a virtual death sentence for their livelihood. They are just one example of countless other gulf coast businesses that have been ignored by the very governmental agencies that exist to serve them. On its face, that is unacceptable. The request that has been put forward by the Small Business Committee for $720 million is a little more than 1 percent of the $62 billion the administration has requested for Katrina relief. This legislation is a very small cost compared to the total amount of money the Government is putting in, but an enormous return for the small businesses that need it. Once again, we are seeing a situation where big business is able to walk away with most of the funding while the vast majority of the job base is in small business, and they are not getting the assistance they need. What our bill does is to authorize $450 million for the impacted States to provide immediate assistance to small businesses struggling to get on their feet. It authorizes additional funding for SBA's partners--such as the small business development centers that are out in the field trying to provide business counseling to the many people and to the owners who are trying to determine what comes next. There are too many businesses on the verge of bankruptcy in the hurricanes' wake. Since the goal shared in a bipartisan way by all of the Senate and the House is to try to get those businesses to be leveraged as best as possible, to be able to return as soon as possible, and each small business that returns helps the other small businesses to be able to return, all of those things will make a difference. Tax breaks will help. But the fact is, tax breaks are not enough because tax breaks do not make an impact until you file your taxes. They have nothing to do with the assistance one needs now to be able to have cash in the pocket, to be able to survive the gap. Small businesses need that additional relief, access to capital, immediate and longer-term. Our bill also addresses the Administration's failure to contract with small businesses to rebuild the region. The New York Times reported more than 80 percent of FEMA contracts alone were awarded on the no-bid limited competition basis. This bill we have introduced--Senator Snowe, myself, and other members of the committee--encourages greater competition by implementing a 30-percent goal for prime contracts and a 40-percent subcontracting goal. With billions of dollars being allocated to relief and reconstruction, it is important to demand fair competition. We need to ensure that America's small businesses are not left behind. The citizens of the gulf region are courageously and desperately trying to rebuild their communities. The empty promises of several weeks ago, ``we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes,'' are ringing in their ears. Frankly, they are wondering where the actions are to back that up. According to Mike Allen of Time magazine, one Presidential adviser is quoted as saying recently: Katrina has fallen so far off the radar screen you can't even find it. We need to find it. We need to put small businesses back on the radar screen. We need to follow through on the commitments to the victims of these devastating hurricanes. We need to ensure that we do not leave the citizens of the Gulf States behind. There is bipartisan support to do this. The Senate passed this legislation previously. My hope is before we decide to go home, we will do what is necessary for the citizens who have been so badly impacted in the Gulf State region get the relief they have told us they need. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. Last July, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction, on which Senator Smith is chairman and I am ranking member, held a hearing on updating our depreciation system. During the hearing, we heard that the current depreciation system is out of date and that changes should be made. Our tax system allows, as a current expense, a depreciation deduction that represents a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used, or of property held for the production of income. Since 1981, the depreciation deduction for most tangible property has been under rules specified in section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, or MACRS, specified under section 168 applies to most new investment in tangible property. MACRS depreciation allowances are computed by determining a recovery period called a class life and an applicable recovery method for each asset. The current depreciation system has not kept pace with technological advances. Several industries were not even contemplated when class lives were assigned in 1981, and some class lives even date back to 1962. In the 1980s it would have been difficult to imagine what our reliance on computer and wireless technology would be today. At that time, for example, the wireless industry was in its infancy, and there was no specifically assigned life for wireless equipment. As a result, today's depreciation system is like playing ``audit roulette.'' There is no certainty in how these assets should be depreciated. All this matters because it impacts investment, innovation, competitiveness, and ultimately the quality and quantity of jobs in America. My home State of Massachusetts is a leader in the high tech industry. Massachusetts employs hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in key technology sectors, including computer hardware, life sciences, software, medical products, semiconductor, defense technology and telecommunications. We have learned in Massachusetts that a strategic tax policy can have a positive effect on economic competitiveness. For these reasons, we are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. This legislation makes four important changes to the current depreciation system. First, the legislation creates a process that provides the Department of Treasury with the authority to modernize class lives. The Secretary of the Treasury will prescribe regulations to provide a new class life for certain eligible property. Eligible property does not include residential rental property, nonresidential real property, or property for which Congress has specifically legislated the recovery period. The purpose of this provision is to provide Treasury with a mechanism to modify class lives that reasonably reflect the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry and take into account when the property becomes technologically or functionally obsolete to perform its original purpose. Treasury will also have the authority to modify class lives in order to more accurately reflect economic depreciation. For example, a personal computer has a depreciable life of 5 years, but it has an economic life of only 2 to 3 years. Even though a computer can be used for 5 years, it becomes economically obsolete after a couple of years because of the newer, faster, and more advanced computers on the market. Our depreciation system has not been adequately updated since Congress revoked Treasury's rule making authority in 1988. When the MACRS system was enacted in 1986, Congress directed Treasury to establish an office to monitor and analyze the actual experience with class lives and to modify class lives if the new class life reasonably reflected the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry. The authority was then revoked because Congress did not agree with all of the decisions made by Treasury. The authority provided in this legislation addresses this previous problem by requiring Treasury to consult with Congress 60 days prior to publishing any proposed regulations. In addition, the Congressional Review Act would apply to any regulation proposed by Treasury and each class life prescribed by Treasury would be considered a separate rule. Providing Treasury with the authority to modify class lives would allow the process to move more efficiently than allowing Congress to make piecemeal changes to the current depreciation system. Congress would provide guidelines, and Treasury would have the role of administering the guidelines. Under the legislation, Treasury would monitor and analyze the actual experience of depreciable assets and report their findings to Congress. We expect Treasury to establish guidelines that will take into consideration the fact that some assets lose a significant percentage of their original value in the early part of their lives. This legislation specifically provides consultation with Congress in order for Congress to continue to have a role in this important tax policy issue. We do not expect Treasury within the first year or two to review all classes of assets. Rather, we expect Treasury to begin with new assets that do not fit into the system, assets that have underdone technological advances, and existing assets that do not really fit into the current system. For example, the current system creates an irrational result for fiber optic lines. The class life of a fiber optic line depends upon whether if it is used for one-way or two-way communications. Second, the legislation would eliminate the mid quarter convention. The placed-in-service conventions determine the point in time during the year that the property is considered ``placed in service'' and this determines when depreciation for an asset begins or ends. Under current law, there are the half-year, mid month, and mid quarter conventions. The mid quarter convention is a source of complexity because it requires an analysis of the depreciable basis of property placed in service during the last 3 months of any taxable year. The Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the elimination of the mid-quarter convention in its 2001 recommendations on simplifying the Federal tax system. The calculation of the mid-quarter convention is burdensome, and it requires taxpayers to wait until after the end of the taxable year to determine whether the proper placed-in-service convention was used to calculate depreciation for assets during the taxable year. Third, the legislation would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for assets with a cost of less than $10,000. Generally, taxpayers calculate depreciation on an item-by-item basis. The bill would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for all assets with the same recovery period. This provision will help simplify the recordkeeping associated with depreciation. Fourth, the legislation would permanently extend increased expensing for small businesses. In lieu of depreciation, a taxpayer with a small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct such costs. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the amount a taxpayer may deduct from $25,000 to $100,000 and increased the total amount of investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing from $200,000 to $400,000. In addition, the Act allows off-the-shelf computer software to be eligible for the provision. These changes originally were effective for 3 years. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 provided an additional 2 year extension of this provision through 2007. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 would make the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts permanent and index them for inflation. Off-the-shelf computer software would be eligible for the provision. Increased expensing for small businesses helps lower the cost of capital for small businesses and eliminates complicated recordkeeping. In addition, it should reduce administrative costs for small businesses. The provisions in this legislation will not be the only recommendations made on how to improve our current depreciation system, but the four components of this legislation will result in updating and simplifying the current depreciation system. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 will provide certainty for taxpayers and put an end to ``audit roulette.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to take this time to honor the life and accomplishments of Peter H. Sorum, Acting National Ombudsman at the U.S. Small Business Administration. Mr. Sorum passed away at the age of 58, leaving behind an impressive legacy through his work in small business, government, entrepreneurship, publishing, and political fundraising. In his 4-year tenure at the Small Business Administration, Mr. Sorum served as the Deputy Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, working closely with State and local officials to foster open communication and strong working relationships among Federal, State, and local government officials. Following this, Mr. Sorum became a senior adviser in the agency's Office of the National Ombudsman. In that post, he served a number of roles, including the regulatory fairness board coordinator, trade association coordinator, and Federal agency liaison. Most recently, Mr. Sorum was the Small Business Administration's Acting National Ombudsman where he worked to ensure that small business owners, nonprofit organizations, and small government entities were not faced with unfair Federal regulatory enforcement actions. Prior to his service in the Small Business Administration, Mr. Sorum, a small business owner himself, was the founder and manager of the software and telecommunications company, Maple Eagle International. Additionally, he published The Word, a Marine Corps Reserve Officers' magazine from 1985-1987 as well as Japan Now from its inception in 1992 until 1994. Mr. Sorum's commitment to public service and small business lasted until his death. His career spanned several decades, including five Presidential administrations. Mr. Sorum's family, friends, and coworkers should take pride in his service to our Nation. I offer my condolences to his wife Mary Claire, and to his mother, siblings, and children during this difficult time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Smith and I are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. Last July, the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Long-Term Growth and Debt Reduction, on which Senator Smith is chairman and I am ranking member, held a hearing on updating our depreciation system. During the hearing, we heard that the current depreciation system is out of date and that changes should be made. Our tax system allows, as a current expense, a depreciation deduction that represents a reasonable allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear of property used, or of property held for the production of income. Since 1981, the depreciation deduction for most tangible property has been under rules specified in section 168 of the Internal Revenue Code. The Modified Accelerated Cost Recovery System, or MACRS, specified under section 168 applies to most new investment in tangible property. MACRS depreciation allowances are computed by determining a recovery period called a class life and an applicable recovery method for each asset. The current depreciation system has not kept pace with technological advances. Several industries were not even contemplated when class lives were assigned in 1981, and some class lives even date back to 1962. In the 1980s it would have been difficult to imagine what our reliance on computer and wireless technology would be today. At that time, for example, the wireless industry was in its infancy, and there was no specifically assigned life for wireless equipment. As a result, today's depreciation system is like playing ``audit roulette.'' There is no certainty in how these assets should be depreciated. All this matters because it impacts investment, innovation, competitiveness, and ultimately the quality and quantity of jobs in America. My home State of Massachusetts is a leader in the high tech industry. Massachusetts employs hundreds of thousands of skilled workers in key technology sectors, including computer hardware, life sciences, software, medical products, semiconductor, defense technology and telecommunications. We have learned in Massachusetts that a strategic tax policy can have a positive effect on economic competitiveness. For these reasons, we are introducing the Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005. This legislation makes four important changes to the current depreciation system. First, the legislation creates a process that provides the Department of Treasury with the authority to modernize class lives. The Secretary of the Treasury will prescribe regulations to provide a new class life for certain eligible property. Eligible property does not include residential rental property, nonresidential real property, or property for which Congress has specifically legislated the recovery period. The purpose of this provision is to provide Treasury with a mechanism to modify class lives that reasonably reflect the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry and take into account when the property becomes technologically or functionally obsolete to perform its original purpose. Treasury will also have the authority to modify class lives in order to more accurately reflect economic depreciation. For example, a personal computer has a depreciable life of 5 years, but it has an economic life of only 2 to 3 years. Even though a computer can be used for 5 years, it becomes economically obsolete after a couple of years because of the newer, faster, and more advanced computers on the market. Our depreciation system has not been adequately updated since Congress revoked Treasury's rule making authority in 1988. When the MACRS system was enacted in 1986, Congress directed Treasury to establish an office to monitor and analyze the actual experience with class lives and to modify class lives if the new class life reasonably reflected the anticipated useful life and the anticipated decline in value over time of the property to the industry. The authority was then revoked because Congress did not agree with all of the decisions made by Treasury. The authority provided in this legislation addresses this previous problem by requiring Treasury to consult with Congress 60 days prior to publishing any proposed regulations. In addition, the Congressional Review Act would apply to any regulation proposed by Treasury and each class life prescribed by Treasury would be considered a separate rule. Providing Treasury with the authority to modify class lives would allow the process to move more efficiently than allowing Congress to make piecemeal changes to the current depreciation system. Congress would provide guidelines, and Treasury would have the role of administering the guidelines. Under the legislation, Treasury would monitor and analyze the actual experience of depreciable assets and report their findings to Congress. We expect Treasury to establish guidelines that will take into consideration the fact that some assets lose a significant percentage of their original value in the early part of their lives. This legislation specifically provides consultation with Congress in order for Congress to continue to have a role in this important tax policy issue. We do not expect Treasury within the first year or two to review all classes of assets. Rather, we expect Treasury to begin with new assets that do not fit into the system, assets that have underdone technological advances, and existing assets that do not really fit into the current system. For example, the current system creates an irrational result for fiber optic lines. The class life of a fiber optic line depends upon whether if it is used for one-way or two-way communications. Second, the legislation would eliminate the mid quarter convention. The placed-in-service conventions determine the point in time during the year that the property is considered ``placed in service'' and this determines when depreciation for an asset begins or ends. Under current law, there are the half-year, mid month, and mid quarter conventions. The mid quarter convention is a source of complexity because it requires an analysis of the depreciable basis of property placed in service during the last 3 months of any taxable year. The Joint Committee on Taxation recommended the elimination of the mid-quarter convention in its 2001 recommendations on simplifying the Federal tax system. The calculation of the mid-quarter convention is burdensome, and it requires taxpayers to wait until after the end of the taxable year to determine whether the proper placed-in-service convention was used to calculate depreciation for assets during the taxable year. Third, the legislation would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for assets with a cost of less than $10,000. Generally, taxpayers calculate depreciation on an item-by-item basis. The bill would allow taxpayers to elect to use mass asset accounting for all assets with the same recovery period. This provision will help simplify the recordkeeping associated with depreciation. Fourth, the legislation would permanently extend increased expensing for small businesses. In lieu of depreciation, a taxpayer with a small amount of annual investment may elect to deduct such costs. The Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 increased the amount a taxpayer may deduct from $25,000 to $100,000 and increased the total amount of investment a business can make in a year and still qualify for expensing from $200,000 to $400,000. In addition, the Act allows off-the-shelf computer software to be eligible for the provision. These changes originally were effective for 3 years. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 provided an additional 2 year extension of this provision through 2007. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 would make the $100,000 and $400,000 amounts permanent and index them for inflation. Off-the-shelf computer software would be eligible for the provision. Increased expensing for small businesses helps lower the cost of capital for small businesses and eliminates complicated recordkeeping. In addition, it should reduce administrative costs for small businesses. The provisions in this legislation will not be the only recommendations made on how to improve our current depreciation system, but the four components of this legislation will result in updating and simplifying the current depreciation system. The Tax Depreciation, Modernization, and Simplification Act of 2005 will provide certainty for taxpayers and put an end to ``audit roulette.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President. I wish to congratulate the Massachusetts Latino Chamber of Commerce, La Camara de Comercio, on the opening of their new Business Center in Springfield, MA. The Business Center will be the home of a number of Latino-owned businesses as well as providing owners with workshops and trainings for members to gain knowledge in their perspective business area. In addition, the center will establish a computer lab to assist members with business research and planning. The new center will serve as a resource able to provide support, referral, and advocacy services to small business owners. La Camara de Comercio will establish a computer center to assist members with business research and planning, as well as business language seminars. Latino businesses across the Commonwealth from Springfield to Boston are helping us to better compete in the global market. It is my privilege to congratulate La Camara de Comercio on this new endeavor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill requiring that the Congressional Medal of Honor be made out of 90 percent gold instead of gold-plated brass as is currently the case. The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award our country bestows for valor in action against an enemy force. Its recipients are ordinary Americans who perform extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving their lives. This is the medal awarded posthumously to Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith. Under attack at Baghdad International Airport, Sergeant Smith quickly organized the defense of his position, engaging a company-sized enemy force. He showed no concern for his own personal safety when in the face of hostile-fire he mounted an armored personnel carrier and manned a .50 caliber machine gun. As the citations accompanying his award put it, ``In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.'' This is the medal won by Captain Humbert Roque Versace. During an intense attack by the Viet Cong in the Xuyen Province, Captain Versace was wounded twice while engaging the enemy but continued to fight until exhaustion and lack of ammunition led to his capture. The citation accompanying his award reads: ``Taken prisoner by the Viet Cong, he exemplified the tenets of the Code of Conduct from the time he entered into Prisoner of War status. Captain Versace assumed command of his fellow American soldiers, scorned the enemy's exhaustive interrogation and indoctrination efforts, and made three unsuccessful attempts to escape, despite his weakened condition which was brought about by his wounds and the extreme privation and hardships he was forced to endure. During his captivity, Captain Versace was segregated in an isolated prisoner of war cage, manacled in irons for prolonged periods of time, and placed on extremely reduced ration. The enemy was unable to break his indomitable will, his faith in God, and his trust in the United States of America. Captain Versace, an American fighting man who epitomized the principles of his country and the Code of Conduct, was executed by the Viet Cong on 26 September 1965.'' This is the medal won by Marine Corps Second Lieutenant Robert Dale Reem, who on the night of November 6, 1950, after leading three separate assaults on an enemy position in the vicinity of Chinhung-ni, Korea, threw himself on top of an enemy grenade that landed amidst his men. This is the medal won by Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Donald Gary, who, while serving aboard the U.S.S. Franklin on July 23, 1945, calmly led his crewmates to safety after their ship was attacked. His citation reads: ``Stationed on the third deck when the ship was rocked by a series of violent explosions set off in her own ready bombs, rockets, and ammunition by the hostile attack, Lt. (j.g.) Gary unhesitatingly risked his life to assist several hundred men trapped in a messing compartment filled with smoke, and with no apparent egress. As the imperiled men below decks became increasingly panic stricken under the raging fury of incessant explosions, he confidently assured them he would find a means of effecting their release and, groping through the dark, debris-filled corridors, ultimately discovered an escapeway. Staunchly determined, he struggled back to the messing compartment three times despite menacing flames, flooding water, and the ominous threat of sudden additional explosions, on each occasion calmly leading his men through the blanketing pall of smoke until the last one had been saved.'' As I have said previously, those who earned these medals are the stuff of legend. But they are more than legends. They are actual people whose deeds inspire humility and gratitude in all of us. In bestowing the Congressional Medal of Honor, the president enrolls the recipient in a sacred club of heroes. The medal itself, however, while invaluable in significance and tribute, does not do enough to show our appreciation. The medal is gold in color but is actually brass plated with gold and only costs approximately $30 to produce. Other Congressional medals given to foreign dignitaries, famous entertainers, and other worthy citizens can cost $30,000 to produce. Now I will be the first to tell you that I believe the value of this medal is found in the deeds of every American who has earned it. But also believe 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I introduce a bill requiring that the Congressional Medal of Honor be made out of 90 percent gold instead of gold-plated brass as is currently the case. The Congressional Medal of Honor is the highest award our country bestows for valor in action against an enemy force. Its recipients are ordinary Americans who perform extraordinary deeds in battle, often giving their lives. This is the medal awarded posthumously to Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith. Under attack at Baghdad International Airport, Sergeant Smith quickly organized the defense of his position, engaging a company-sized enemy force. He showed no concern for his own personal safety when in the face of hostile-fire he mounted an armored personnel carrier and manned a .50 caliber machine gun. As the citations accompanying his award put it, ``In total disregard for his own life, he maintained his exposed position in order to engage the attacking enemy force. During this action, he was mortally wounded. His courageous actions helped defeat the enemy attack, and resulted in as many as 50 enemy soldiers killed, while allowing the safe withdrawal of numerous wounded soldiers.'' This is the medal won by Captain Humbert Roque Versace. During an intense attack by the Viet Cong in the Xuyen Province, Captain Versace was wounded twice while engaging the enemy but continued to fight until exhaustion and lack of ammunition led to his capture. The citation accompanying his award reads: ``Taken prisoner by the Viet Cong, he exemplified the tenets of the Code of Conduct from the time he entered into Prisoner of War status. Captain Versace assumed command of his fellow American soldiers, scorned the enemy's exhaustive interrogation and indoctrination efforts, and made three unsuccessful attempts to escape, despite his weakened condition which was brought about by his wounds and the extreme privation and hardships he was forced to endure. During his captivity, Captain Versace was segregated in an isolated prisoner of war cage, manacled in irons for prolonged periods of time, and placed on extremely reduced ration. The enemy was unable to break his indomitable will, his faith in God, and his trust in the United States of America. Captain Versace, an American fighting man who epitomized the principles of his country and the Code of Conduct, was executed by the Viet Cong on 26 September 1965.'' This is the medal won by Marine Corps Second Lieutenant Robert Dale Reem, who on the night of November 6, 1950, after leading three separate assaults on an enemy position in the vicinity of Chinhung-ni, Korea, threw himself on top of an enemy grenade that landed amidst his men. This is the medal won by Lieutenant, Junior Grade, Donald Gary, who, while serving aboard the U.S.S. Franklin on July 23, 1945, calmly led his crewmates to safety after their ship was attacked. His citation reads: ``Stationed on the third deck when the ship was rocked by a series of violent explosions set off in her own ready bombs, rockets, and ammunition by the hostile attack, Lt. (j.g.) Gary unhesitatingly risked his life to assist several hundred men trapped in a messing compartment filled with smoke, and with no apparent egress. As the imperiled men below decks became increasingly panic stricken under the raging fury of incessant explosions, he confidently assured them he would find a means of effecting their release and, groping through the dark, debris-filled corridors, ultimately discovered an escapeway. Staunchly determined, he struggled back to the messing compartment three times despite menacing flames, flooding water, and the ominous threat of sudden additional explosions, on each occasion calmly leading his men through the blanketing pall of smoke until the last one had been saved.'' As I have said previously, those who earned these medals are the stuff of legend. But they are more than legends. They are actual people whose deeds inspire humility and gratitude in all of us. In bestowing the Congressional Medal of Honor, the president enrolls the recipient in a sacred club of heroes. The medal itself, however, while invaluable in significance and tribute, does not do enough to show our appreciation. The medal is gold in color but is actually brass plated with gold and only costs approximately $30 to produce. Other Congressional medals given to foreign dignitaries, famous entertainers, and other worthy citizens can cost $30,000 to produce. Now I will be the first to tell you that I believe the value of this medal is found in the deeds of every American who has earned it. But also believe 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. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I respect the comments of the Senator and I appreciate the way he has approached it and I am grateful to him and thank him, as I am sure others do, for his comments about Congressman Murtha. I know he would agree with me that those who suggested what he is saying is cowardly or suggested that is surrender, that those are words probably inappropriate in this debate. I think the Senator would agree with me that those characterizations have no place here. And he is right about the question of how everybody approached the intelligence. We all did have a unified belief about the existence of weapons--most of us. But I disagree with the Senator. I would ask him if he does not agree that there are legitimate areas of inquiry, which the Intelligence Committee is now pursuing, with respect to what happened to certain intelligence that came to the Congress? For instance--about five areas. One was the speech that was made by the President, where he referenced nuclear materials coming from Africa which, in fact, the CIA on three different occasions, both verbally and in writing, informed the White House: Don't use this. But nevertheless it was used. Whether that was intentional or inadvertent, all we know is that winds up being misleading because the CIA disagreed with the evidence. Likewise, telling America they could deliver biological, chemical weapons within the period of 45 minutes, which was disagreed with in the intelligence community, was not signed off within the intelligence community. Likewise, suggesting Iraq had trained al-Qaida in the creation of bombs, bomb making, and poison creation--not agreed by the intelligence community; in fact, erroneous. Likewise, as the Vice President said on several occasions, that there was a meeting between Iraq and al-Qaida operatives, a meeting that the intelligence community did not substantiate, which we now know did not take place. Those are, on their face, misleading representations made to us, which Members of the Congress operated on. I would assume the Senator would agree the mere fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction means we were all misled. Whether it was intentional is the operative question. I can't tell you whether it was intentional. But I certainly know that when you ignore the CIA's warnings, don't use this intelligence, and nevertheless it winds up in the State of the Union message, there is a disconnect that raises the most serious questions, that leaves a lot of us wondering. I ask the Senator, does he not agree that those instances where the intelligence community is in disagreement and they don't tell us they are in disagreement and we don't get the same intelligence, provides some serious questions?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, yesterday, as all of us know, Jack Murtha, one of the most respected Congressmen on military affairs, one of the most respected Congressmen on national security issues, a former marine drill sergeant and a decorated Vietnam veteran, spoke out on our policy in Iraq. Whether one agrees or disagrees with Congressman Murtha is not the point. He did not come to this moment lightly. Any one of us who knows Congressman Murtha or anybody who has worked with him over these years, Republican or Democrat, respects this man, respects his personal commitment to our country, respects his understanding of these issues, and understands he did not come to that moment lightly. He spoke his mind and he spoke his heart out of love for his country and out of absolute and total unconditional support for the troops, of which he was once one. I do not intend to stand for, nor should any of us in the Congress stand for, another Swiftboat attack on the character of Jack Murtha. It frankly disgusts me that a bunch of guys who never chose to put on the uniform of their country now choose in the most personal way, in the most venomous, to question the character of a man who did wear the uniform of his country and who bled doing it. It is wrong. He served heroically in uniform. He served heroically for our country. Have we lost all civility and all common sense in this institution and in this city? No matter what J.D. Hayworth says, there is no sterner stuff than the backbone and courage that defines Jack Murtha's character and his conscience. Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House, who never chose to put on the uniform of his country and serve, called Jack Murtha a coward and accused him of wanting to cut and run. On its face, looking at the record, looking at his life, Jack Murtha has never cut and run from anything. Jack Murtha was not a coward when he put himself in harm's way for his country in Vietnam and he earned two Purple Hearts. He was a patriot then and he is a patriot today. He deserves his views to be respected, not vilified. Jack Murtha did not cut and run when his courage earned him a Bronze Star, and his voice ought to be heard today, not silenced by those who would actually choose to cut and run from the truth. Just a day after Vice President Dick Cheney, who himself had five deferments from service to his country because, as he said, he had other priorities than serving his country, just 1 day after he accused Democrats of being unpatriotic, the White House accused Jack Murtha of surrendering. Jack Murtha served 37 years in the U.S. Marine Corps. Jack Murtha does not know how to surrender, not to enemy combatants and not to politicians in Washington who say speaking one's conscience is unpatriotic. The other day we celebrated what would have been the 80th birthday of Robert Kennedy. When Robert Kennedy opposed the war in Vietnam, despite the fact that his brother and the administration he was in had been involved in articulating that policy, he talked about how there was blame enough to go around. He also said the sharpest criticism often goes hand in hand with the deepest idealism and love of country. Chuck Hagel showed that he has not forgotten that when he said: The Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them. Too many people seem to have forgotten that long ago and too many of our friends on the other side of the aisle somehow think that asking tough questions is pessimism. It is not pessimism. It is patriotism. It is how one lives in a democracy. We are busy trying to take to Iraq and take to Afghanistan and take to the world the democracy we love and we are somehow unwilling to fully practice it at home. We have seen the politics of fear and smear too many times. Whenever challenged, there are some Republican leaders who engage in the politics of personal destruction rather than debate the issues. It does not matter who one is. When they did it to John McCain, we saw that it does not matter what political party one is in. When they did it to Max Cleland, we saw that it does not matter if one's service put them in a wheelchair. And when they did it to Jack Murtha yesterday, perhaps the most respected voice on military matters in all of the Congress, we saw that some in this administration and their supporters will go to any lengths to crush any dissent. Once again, some are engaged in the lowest form of smear-and-fear politics because I guess they are afraid of actually debating a senior Congressman who has advised Presidents of both parties on how to best defend our country. They are afraid to debate the substance with a veteran who lives and breathes the concerns of our troops, not the empty slogans that sent our troops to war without adequate body armor, without adequate planning, without adequate strategy. Maybe they are terrified of actually leveling with the American people about the way that they did, in fact, mislead the country into war or of admitting that they have no clear plan to finish the job and get our troops home. Whether one agrees with Jack Murtha's policy statement yesterday is irrelevant. The truth is there is a better course for our troops and a better course for America in Iraq. The Senate itself went on record this week as saying exactly that. Every Senator in this body voted one way or the other to express their feelings about Iraq. I intend to keep fighting, along with a lot of other people, to make certain we take that better course for the good of our country. American families who have lost or who fear the loss of their loved ones plain deserve to know the truth about what we have asked them to do, what we are doing to complete the mission, and what we are doing to prevent our forces from being trapped in an endless quagmire. Our military families understand--I mean, all one has to do is visit with them when they come here and they talk about their sons, their husbands, and their fathers who are over there. They are concerned and want an open debate about what will best support the troops and how to get them home the fastest with the job done the most effectively. The only way to get it done right in Iraq, the only way to get our sons and daughters home, is for all of us to weigh in on this issue. We also need to be mindful that as the White House yet again engages in a character assassination to stop Americans from listening to the words of a military expert and understanding the consequences, we need to understand the consequences of the road we have already traveled because when one looks at the road we have already traveled, it makes it even more imperative that we have this debate and engage in this dialogue. It is a stunning and tragic journey that on many different occasions even defies fundamental common sense and leaves a trail of broken promises. From the very start, when we were talking about what it might cost or not cost, when an administration official suggested it would cost $200 billion, he was fired, not listened to. When people wondered how we would pay for the war and we were told the oil will pay for it, while others were saying the oil infrastructure was not sufficient to pay for it, they were not listened to. When the administration could have listened to General Shinseki and actually put in enough troops to maintain order, they chose not to. When they could have learned from George Herbert Walker Bush and built a genuine global coalition so we had the world with us, not most of the world questioning us or against us, they chose not to. When they could have implemented a detailed State Department plan for reconstructing post-Saddam Iraq, they chose not to. When they could have protected American forces and prevented our kids from getting blown up by ammunition that was in the dumps of Saddam Hussein and in the various locations our military were aware of, they chose not to. Instead of guarding those ammunition dumps and armories, they chose not to. When they could have imposed immediate order and structure in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Secretary Rumsfeld shrugged his shoulders and said, Baghdad was safer than Washington, DC, and they chose not to take action. When the administration could have kept an Iraqi army selectively intact, they chose not to. When they could have kept an entire civil structure functioning in order to deliver basic services to Iraqi citizens, they chose not to. When they could have accepted the offers of the nations and individual countries to provide on-the-ground peacekeepers, reconstruction assistance, they chose not to. When they should have leveled with the American people that the insurgency had in fact grown, they chose not to. Vice President Cheney even absurdly claimed that the insurgency was in its last throes. All of these mistakes tell us something. They scream out for a debate. They scream out for a dialogue. They scream out for a policy that gets it right. We are in trouble today precisely because of a policy of cut and run where the administration made the wrong choice to cut and run from established procedures of gathering intelligence and of how it is evaluated and shared with the Congress; to cut and run from the best military advice; to cut and run from sensible wartime planning; to cut and run from their responsibility to properly arm and protect our troops; to cut and run from history's clear lessons about the Middle East and about Iraq itself; to cut and run from common sense. That is the debate some people appear to want to avoid in this country. Instead of letting his cronies verbally blast away, the President ought to finally find the will to debate the real issue instead of destroying anyone who speaks truth to power as they see it. It is time for Americans to stand up and fight back against this kind of politics and make it clear that it is unacceptable to do this to any leader of any party anywhere in our country at any time. We can disagree, but we do not have to engage in this kind of personal attack and personal destruction. I hope my colleagues will come to the floor and engage in this debate. Our country will be stronger for it. That is what we ought to do instead of attacking the character of a man such as Jack Murtha. Believe me, that is a fight nobody is going to win in our America. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Subsequently, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, be recognized to speak after me.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed for such time as I may consume in order to finish my statement. It will not be much more than 10 minutes.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last night, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 4145, a bill to direct the Architect of the Capitol to obtain a statue of Rosa Parks and to place the statue in the United States Capitol in National Statuary Hall. Today, the Senate unanimously passed this legislation, and I rise to thank my colleagues in this body and in the House of Representatives for their leadership and support for this important legislation, which sends a message of hope and freedom to the American people. Earlier this week a resolution sponsored by Senator McConnell and Senator Dodd passed this body to honor Mrs. Parks. I thank Senators McCONNELL and Dodd for their leadership on this issue and considering my concerns. I supported Mr. McConnell's and Mr. Dodd's measure because I believe it is paramount that we honor Rosa Parks in our Capitol. However, I wanted to be clear that her statue should be in Statuary Hall, and I was glad to join Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois in his effort to make that happen. Largely regarded as the mother of the modern day Civil Rights movement, Mrs. Parks' act of courage on December 1, 1955, inspired a movement that eventually brought about laws to end segregation, ensure voting rights, end discrimination in housing, and create a greater equality throughout this nation. Moreover, it taught us all that one individual can help to change the world from the way things are to the way things ought to be. With the passage of this legislation, we ensure that her memory is enshrined in the most hallowed halls of our Government. On November 3, 2005, I introduced S. 1959, the companion legislation to Representative Jackson's H.R. 4145, which would also place a statue of Rosa Parks in Statuary Hall in the Capitol. This is a location of great significance, particularly on this occasion and particularly with this individual. While there are memorials for prominent African Americans in the Capitol Collection, none of those are located in the hall that gives a State-by-State account of our country's history. This week, Representative Jackson and I began a national week of action to pass our legislation honoring Rosa Parks with a statue in National Statuary Hall. I thank Representative Jackson for his leadership on this important effort. It was through his vision and dedication that we were able to reach our goal of having this legislation pass Congress by December 1, 2005--the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' courageous decision not to move to the back of the bus. I also thank Senators McConnell and Dodd for helping to make that happen. It could not have been enacted without their support. Finally, I thank Senator Obama, Senator Smith and my other Senate colleagues who cosponsored S. 1959 for their support in raising the awareness and helping to ensure the passage of this legislation. Mrs. Parks' legacy, and that of the movement she began, has been served well by this bipartisan effort to honor her in Statuary Hall.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this amendment does not raise taxes. It does not require a new offset. What it does is provide for our combat troops who currently have the ability to take combat pay and make it count against the earned income tax credit. Believe it or not, there are troops who need that and use that. It expires at the end of this year. What this amendment does is continue it into 2007 through the end of 2007. Secondly, it does something else. It provides a more rapid relief of the marriage penalty which is now charged to people who get the earned income tax credit. Now, this was already passed under the 2001 tax legislation but will not go into effect until 2008. This is paid for by an offset we have already passed, and there is sufficient money in that offset to accelerate the marriage penalty reduction so that we reward parents with kids who work and we take away the marriage penalty and help our troops at the same time. I hope my colleagues will support it.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, pursuant to section 904 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I move to waive the applicable sections thereof for purposes of this amendment. We already have the yeas and nays. I ask for the yeas and nays with respect to the motion to waive.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I filed an amendment to the Tax Relief Act of 2005, S. 2020, to provide additional relief for taxpayers from the individual alternative minimum tax by truly holding harmless all taxpayers not currently impacted by the AMT. Senator Wyden is a cosponsor of this amendment. This afternoon, the managers of the S. 2020, Senators Grassley and Baucus, crafted a managers' amendment including identical language to our amendment, and that managers' amendment was accepted by unanimous consent and is now part of the legislation that will pass the Senate. I think we misname this tax when we call it the alternative minimum tax. We should call it the family tax, for the simple reason that most taxpayers get hit by the AMT because of where they live and because they have children. We can call it the AMT or any other innocuous name we like here on Capitol Hill or at the IRS, but in practice it is a tax on children--it is the family tax. If you live in a certain State, and you don't want to pay this family tax, about the only thing you can do is to not start a family. We are literally punishing Americans for having children and building families. In May, we heard testimony from the Urban Institute about how the AMT was once a ``class tax'' but will soon become a ``mass tax'' because more and more taxpayers--mostly because they want children--will be forced to pay the AMT. Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate who works every day on the practical implications of what we do here, has repeatedly testified about the complexities and the inequities of the AMT. She said sarcastically that the AMT ``penalizes taxpayers for such classic tax avoidance behavior as having children or living in a high-tax state.'' If you look at the history of the AMT, you can see that it badly needs reform. The individual AMT was created in 1969 to address the 155 individual taxpayers with incomes exceeding $200,000 who paid no Federal income tax in 1966. It applied to a tiny minority of households. But it is rapidly growing from those 155 taxpayers in 1969 to 1 million in 1999 to almost 29 million by 2010. It now affects families with incomes well below $200,000. By the end of the decade, repealing the AMT will cost more than repealing the regular income tax. Unfortunately, we cannot end this family tax today, but we can do more than what is in the bill. When S. 2020 was first brought before the Senate it included a provision that would extend the current exemption level and indexes it for inflation. This provision seeks to ``patch'' or ``hold harmless'' these middle-class taxpayers, but it is a patch with a hole in it. It does not cover all the moderate income individuals who are impacted by the family tax. The Kerry-Wyden amendment, and the enacted Grassley-Baucus amendment, would protect half a million more taxpayers from the family tax than the original bill. This amendment truly holds taxpayers harmless. The same amount of taxpayers that would be impacted by the AMT in 2005 will be impacted in 2006. This means 600,000 million taxpayers will be better off under the amendment. We should protect as many families as possible from the unfair family tax. And this amendment is paid for with an offset that has had bipartisan support and passed the Senate. The cost of our proposal is fully offset. First, it reforms the tax law that now applies to U.S. citizens living abroad, so the income tax exclusion would apply to both foreign income and foreign housing costs. Under current law, individuals get a tax credit for foreign taxes paid. This provision passed the Senate last year and was included in the Joint Committee on Taxation recommendation on ways to reduce the tax gap. Second, it would modify a provision in the underlying bill that makes modifications to the individual estimated tax-safe harbor to the appropriate percentage in 2006. The Senate should stop punishing taxpayers because of where they live, because they move from one State to another for work or school, or because they decide to start a family. Today we took a step in that direction. I am grateful to Senator Wyden for cosponsoring the amendment with me, and I am grateful that Senators Grassley and Baucus acted as well.

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 2616.