John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

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. KERRY. Mr. President, drought continues to be a serious problem for many states in this country, and I am very pleased that yesterday, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2006, we passed legislation that will help small businesses in those States that have been hurt by drought. I thank Senators Levin and Warner, and their staffs, for their help in moving drought relief one step closer to enactment. This legislation helps small businesses that need disaster assistance but can not get it through the Small Business Administration's disaster loan program. You see, the SBA does not treat all drought victims the same. The agency only helps those small businesses whose income is tied to farming and agriculture. However, farmers and ranchers are not the only small business owners whose livelihoods are at risk when drought hits their communities. The impact can be just as devastating to the owners of rafting businesses, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. Just ask the many small businesses on Lake Mead, outside of Las Vegas, that met with the committee in July: fishing guides that struggle to find ramps that still reach the water to launch their boats; boat dealerships in the county that have lost an estimated $100 million in sales because recreation at the lake is down; marinas paying millions to move their docks, buildings, and utilities, trying to ``chase the water.'' The area usually gets 8 to 10 million visitors a year. However, the impact of drought on Lake Mead has had a serious adverse impact on the regional economy, exceeding $1 billion according to local officials. Lake Michigan has suffered similar economic losses, and its delegation has been pushing for small business relief for years. Sadly, these small businesses cannot get help through the SBA's disaster loan program because of something taxpayers hate about Government-- bureaucracy. The SBA denies these businesses access to disaster loans because its lawyers say drought is not a sudden event and therefore it is not a disaster by definition. However, contrary to the agency's position that drought is not a disaster, in July of 2002, when this legislation was originally introduced, the SBA had in effect drought disaster declarations in 36 States. As of today, 17 States are under SBA drought disaster declarations: Wisconsin, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, Montana, Oregon, Nebraska, South Dakota, Iowa, Oklahoma, Illinois, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Kansas, and California. Adding insult to injury, in those States where the agency declares drought disasters, it limits assistance to only farm-related small businesses. Take, for instance, South Carolina. A couple of years ago that entire State had been declared a disaster by the SBA, but the administration would not help all drought victims. Let me read to you from the declaration: Small businesses located in all 46 counties may apply for economic injury disaster loan assistance through the SBA. These are working capital loans to help the business continue to meet its obligations until the business returns to normal conditions. . . . Only small, non-farm agriculture dependent and small agricultural cooperatives are eligible to apply for assistance. Nurseries are also eligible for economic injury caused by drought conditions. The SBA has the authority to help all small businesses hurt by drought in declared disaster areas, but the agency won't do it. For years the agency has been applying the law unfairly, helping some and not others, and it is out of compliance with the law. The small business drought relief provision that passed yesterday as part of the Defense Authorization Act--and that I introduced this July as the Small Business Drought Relief Act of 2005 S. 1463--would force SBA to comply with existing law, restoring fairness to an unfair system, and get help to small business drought victims that need it. This legislation has been thoroughly reviewed, passing the committee of jurisdiction and the full Senate three times, with supporters numbering up to 25, from both sides of the aisle. In addition to approval by the committee of jurisdiction, OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, approved virtually identical legislation in 2003. The legislation passed yesterday includes those changes we worked out with the administration, and I see no reason why this should not be retained in the final conference report and sent to the President for his signature. I thank Senators Snowe and Bond, our current and past chairs, both of whom have been supportive of this legislation each time it was introduced and passed. And I again thank Senators Levin and Warner.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is important that today the Senate is honoring a true national hero, Mrs. Rosa Parks. As you know, I introduced legislation to honor Rosa Parks with a statue in National Statuary Hall. I thank the chair of the Rules Committee, Senator McConnell, and the ranking member, Senator Dodd, for amending their legislation to designate Statuary Hall as a venue for a tribute to this great American. I think it is important we ensure that the memory of Rosa Parks is honored by placing a statue of her in the U.S. Capitol so future generations can understand her monumental efforts for civil rights and know the importance of living by her example still today. I thank Senators McConnell and Dodd for working with me and amending their resolution to ensure that Statuary Hall is considered as a possible location for the statue of Mrs. Parks. I also thank the numerous Senators who supported my legislation, S. 1959. I am supporting Mr. McConnell's and Mr. Dodd's measure today because I believe it is paramount that we honor Rosa Parks in our Capitol, but I want to be very clear that her statue should be in Statuary Hall. On November 3, 2005, I introduced legislation to 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. In the struggle for civil rights, some were called to stand up to Bull Connor's fire hoses and police dogs--some to stand up to Klan terrorism--and some to stand up to state sponsored acts of violence. But some were called simply to sit down--at lunch counters in Greensboro and Nashville and Atlanta--or on a bus in Montgomery. This simple action of peaceful opposition to existing rules had a significant impact on the lives of all Americans. Her 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. It should be noted that I have been working closely with my colleagues in the House of Representatives, particularly with Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. from Illinois, whose bill has over 175 cosponsors to honor Rosa Parks in Statuary Hall. It is identical in content to my original bill, S. 1959, to ensure that Mrs. Parks' statue is placed in Statuary Hall. When the House passes Representative Jackson's bill, it is my intention to bring that legislation up for a vote in the Senate to ensure that her memory is enshrined in the most hallowed halls of our Government. 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. Our goal is to have Congress pass both bills by December 1, 2005--the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' courageous decision not to move to the back of the bus. Rosa Parks was one of our greatest American heroes, a woman whose quiet courage changed a country. She deserves the highest honors this country can give. I can think of no better way to honor the 50th anniversary of Rosa Parks' brave act against injustice than by passing legislation that ensures that schoolchildren, Members of Congress and presidents visiting the Capitol can see how highly our Nation thinks of her, and that we need to follow her example of refusing to go quietly to the back of the bus.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today we are debating the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 which is the culmination of the efforts of the Finance Committee and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee to improve the funding of both single and multiemployer defined benefit plans. I commend Senators Grassley, Baucus, Enzi, and Kennedy for their efforts in reaching bipartisan compromise legislation. We all agree that defined benefit plans are underfunded and that this issue needs to be addressed. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation had $22.8 billion in underfunding in its single employer program. The PBGC's liabilities for fiscal year 2006 are expected to be much higher. If other liabilities that the PBGC assumed after the end of the fiscal year were counted, the 2005 deficit would have been $25.7 billion. We cannot allow the underfunding of pensions to continue. This legislation takes the right approach by striking the appropriate balance. We want to protect employees, but we do not want to make defined benefit plans so restrictive that employers will not offer them. The focus of the Pension Security and Transparency Act is to improve the funding of pension plans and to provide more disclosure, but this legislation does address other important pension issues. The Senate Finance Committee has reported out pension legislation in past Congresses that was not addressed by the full Senate. The first reiteration of Senate Finance pension legislation focused on defined contribution issues that arose in light of the collapse of Enron. Along with Senator Snowe, I introduced legislation which strengthened defined contribution plans by requiring diversification and disclosure. Many of the provisions from this bill were incorporated into the Finance bill. Even though the collapse of Enron is behind us, the lessons learned remain. It is important for defined contribution plans to be required to allow workers to diversify their contributions out of employer stock. The rank and file employees of Enron do not want anyone else to have the same experience that they had. These provisions are overdue. Other lessons can be learned from the Enron debacle. Back in 2001, we were all repulsed by the stories of corporate greed and how executives crafted elaborate schemes to falsify the true financial status of the companies. Enron reminded us about the problems with excessive executive compensation. Unfortunately, excessive executive compensation remains an issue today. Due to the work of the Finance Committee on executive compensation an end has been put to some abusive practices, but some still remain. One in particular that I find troubling is the funding of nonqualified deferred executive compensation prior to the funding of the corporation's pension plan. In recent years, a number of large companies set aside millions of dollars to fund the pensions of top executives, but they do not bother to fund their pension plans. Companies that chose to do this were not violating laws by doing so, but this legislation will change this. Under this legislation, for the first time the funding of nonqualified deferred executive compensation will be linked to the funding of pension plans. Executives of financially weak companies will no longer be able to take care of themselves. We repeatedly hear about executives that negotiate deferred compensation to ensure that they have a lucrative nest egg, even if the company is struggling or about to go bankrupt. We cannot stand for this any longer. This legislation includes a provision which I worked to have included in the Finance Committee bill. Financially weak companies will no longer be able to fund executive compensation unless their pension plan is 80 percent funded. Initially, the Finance Committee restricted the funding of deferred executive compensation for companies with plans that are funded at 60 percent or less. I thought 60 percent was too low because a plan is already in trouble at this point. In addition, no benefit increases will be allowed if a plan is funded at 80 percent or less. There is no valid reason why deferred executive compensation should be funded if a pension plan is funded at a level at which benefit increases are restricted. Employers have a responsibility to fund pension plans. They should not make promises to their employees and fail to keep them, while they are taking care of their own retirement. The bill before us today does the right thing by restricting the funding of deferred executive compensation for financially weak companies that have pension plans funded at 80 percent or less and for all companies that have pension plans funded at 60 percent or less. In June, the PGBC released data on the underfunding of pension plans with more than $50 million in unfunded pension liabilities. This data shows that these plans have an average underfunded ratio of 69 percent. Back in 2000, the average funding ratio was 82.8 percent. While pension funding has been on the decline, deferred executive compensation is increasing. We need to send a message to corporate executives that they need to fund the pension plans of their workers before they reward themselves with extremely generous benefits for life. I see this not as punitive, but as meeting our responsibility to demand better performance from the executives who can do the most to put pension funding on track. Ultimately, this proposal will protect the taxpayer. The Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 includes provisions which make slight modifications to the funding rules for interstate bus companies. I worked to have these provisions included in the Finance Committee bill. These provisions address a unique situation in which the average age of the participant of the plan is much older than participants in other plans. Congress has addressed this issue before on a temporary basis and the provision in the chairman's modifications would make this relief permanent. It will help retirees in my home state of Massachusetts, and it is an equitable outcome. Not only does this legislation address single employer plans, it strengthens multiemployer plans. The Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 includes important provisions which strengthen the funding rules for multiemployer pension plans. Multiemployer pension plans play a vital role in our pension system. Multiemployer pension plans are collectively bargained arrangements between a labor union and a group of employers in a particular trade or industry. These plans provide a way for workers in industries where job changes are frequent to save for retirement. Pension coverage continues when an employee changes jobs if the new employer is with a participating employer. The Pension Security and Transparency Act would require troubled plans to improve their finance condition and severely underfunded pension plans would be required to adopt a ten-year rehabilitation plan. This legislation requires the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Executive Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to issue a study on the state of multiemployer funding in five years. I proposed an amendment which was added to the bill. This provision requires the study to look at the effects that the new funding rules have on small employers and other issues that they face, including the impact of withdrawal liability. Employers that wish to discontinue their cosponsorship of a multi employer plan are required to pay a withdrawl liability, which represents the sponsors' pro rata share of the plan's underfunded liabilities. Recently, I heard from a small business owner in Massachusetts who contributes to a multiemployer plan and he explained how his withdrawal liability has increased rapidly over the last five years. Some of this is due to corrections in the stock market, but part of it is due to a decrease in companies paying into plans. This small business described withdrawal liability as a ``vicious death spiral''--as more companies go out of business or otherwise withdraw from the pension fund, withdrawal for the remaining employers rise. This provision would require the impact of withdrawal liability on the financial status of small employers to be studied. In addition, the study would look at the role of the multi employer pension plan system in helping small employers to offer pension benefits. The multiemployer pension system serves an important role in our pension system and we do not want to make these plans a burden for small businesses. If withdrawal liability continues its vicious spiral, it will be difficult for multi employer plans to attract new employers and existing employers could be faced with a situation in which their withdrawal liability exceeds their assets. In addition, the Pension Security and Transparency Act would incorporate provisions from the Save More for Retirement Act of 2005 which I have cosponsored. These provisions will encourage workers to participate in retirement plans by providing innovative incentives for employers to modify their existing plans to add provisions that will increase savings. Employers will be able to automatically enroll their employees in 401(k)s upon being hired unless the employee notifies the employer that he or she does not want to participate. Studies have shown that this simple change will dramatically increase participation rates. This is a simple improvement that should increase our drastically low national savings rate. We might not all agree with every single provision in this bill, but overall it reflects a balanced approach to a problem that needs to be addressed. Plans need to be adequately funded. The rules cannot be draconian and lead to the termination of pension plans by employers. Pensions are a central part of our retirement system and we need to ensure continued participation by employers. Retirement is based on three components: personal savings, employer provided pensions, and Social Security. All three components are necessary for a sound retirement system that is able to provide for most of America's retired workers. Our current pension laws are inadequate. Employers have not properly funded their pension plans, workers have been promised more than their pension plans can possibly 3 deliver, and the PBGC can not be expected to cover the difference. At the same time, the financial burden of employer-provided pensions is real, and it threatens some of our major companies and the jobs they provide today. This issue is not going away. The PBGC estimates that its shortfall could approach $100 billion dollars based on the underfunding of plans which have been classified as reasonably possible of termination. We should avoid a subsidy or bailout with general revenues. The PBGC operates with no taxpayer assistance today and it was designed to be financially independent of the Federal Government. We should maintain that. Passing the Pension Security and Transparency Act of 2005 is a step in the right direction to preserving our defined benefit pension system.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to speak in support of the important amendment on Iraq offered by my colleague Senator Levin. I am pleased to have worked with many of my Democratic colleagues on this amendment and to be an original cosponsor. Mr. President, 2006 will be the pivotal year in determining whether we can successfully complete our mission in Iraq and bring our troops home in a reasonable amount of time. As we enter this make or break period, the administration must finally adopt a realistic, clear, and comprehensive strategy. This Democratic amendment lays out many of the principles that should guide that strategy, including using all of our diplomatic, military, political and economic leverage to defeat the insurgency, getting greater international support for the reconstruction effort, strengthening the capacity of Iraq's governing ministries, and training Iraqi security forces. And it requires the administration to regularly report back to Congress and the American public on the status of implementing the measures necessary to complete the mission. As we know from painful experience, no President can sustain a war without the support of the American people. In the case of Iraq, their patience is frayed nearly to the breaking point because Americans who care deeply about their country will not tolerate our troops giving their lives without a clear strategy, and will not tolerate vague platitudes when real answers are needed. The Democratic amendment addresses that by calling on the administration to give Congress and the American public a target schedule for achieving the conditions that will allow for the phased redeployment of U.S. troops, the status of efforts meet that schedule, and the estimated dates for such redeployment. Let's be very clear on this point: the Democratic amendment does not call for setting any arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal of U.S. troops. It envisions redeployment of U.S. forces as conditions allow. But it rejects the administration's hollow, vague declaration to just ``stay as long as it takes'' by calling on the administration to give target dates and regular updates on reaching those conditions. For far too long, Congress and the American public have been left in the dark when it comes to Iraq. We have repeatedly been asked by the administration to take their word that they have a strategy for success, without being given any sense of what that is or when our troops will be home. It is past time for Congress and the American people to be fully informed about what our strategy is, the progress that is being made in implementing it, and when we might expect to see our troops redeployed. That is what the Levin amendment will do. While the Democratic amendment and the Republican amendment offered by Senators Warner and Frist are a wakeup call to the Bush administration that there is an overwhelming bipartisan majority with deep concerns about the administration's aimless course in Iraq, I will not support the Warner-Frist amendment because it stripped out two of the key provisions of the Democratic amendment. The first is the sense of the Senate that America should let the Iraqi people know that we will not stay in Iraq indefinitely, which will send an important message about our intentions while reducing the sense of U.S. occupation. The second is the requirement that the administration provide a report to Congress that includes estimated dates for the redeployment of U.S. troops as specific conditions are met, which is necessary to keep Congress and the American public informed about our progress towards the ultimate goal of finishing our mission and getting our troops home. These provisions are an essential part of a real strategy for success in Iraq. We owe our troops and the country nothing less.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last week I voted against an amendment introduced by Senator Graham, No. 2515, which stripped the Federal courts of their historic jurisdiction to hear applications for writs of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I did so because the amendment would have eliminated virtually all judicial review of combatant detentions, including review of the decisions of military tribunals. Today, I voted in favor of Senator Bingaman's amendment No. 2523, because it would have preserved judicial review in the most important areas while also preventing frivolous claims. When the Bingaman amendment failed, I voted for a second-degree amendment No. 2524, which reflected the hard work of Senator Levin to provide another means to preserve some form of judicial review of the proceedings at Guantanamo Bay. And, it is my understanding that, as Senator Levin stated on the floor of the Senate just yesterday, ``this amendment will not strip courts of jurisdiction over [pending] cases.'' The war on terror presents us with challenges unique in our Nation's history, requiring solutions that are sustainable over the long-term. We have little reason to trust the administration's record on this score. But with these provisions, the Senate declares it is our priority to prosecute the war on terror with every tool at the country's disposal including the rule of law. It remains my priority, and I know the priority of my colleagues, to win this war, to hunt down and destroy terrorists wherever they are, destroy their networks, and make our world safe.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the managers, particularly Senator Graham and Senator Levin. Veterans Day is a very special day in our country's history. There are a lot of veterans who believe Veterans Day is just plain sacred--a lot of families, Gold Star mothers, wives for whom it is a day set aside to memorialize the unbelievable sacrifice of generations of Americans who have given themselves for our country. Veterans Day is sacred. It is a day to honor veterans, not a day to play attack politics. The President, who is Commander in Chief, should know and respect this. Veterans Day originally marked the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month when the guns of World War I, the war to end all wars, finally fell silent. Instead of honoring that moment, instead of laying a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington, instead of laying out a clear plan for success in Iraq, the President laid into his critics with an 11th hour rhetorical assault that I believe dishonors that day and does a disservice to veterans and to those serving today. He did so even as he continued to distort the truth about his war of choice. Perhaps most striking of all is that his almost desperate sounding Veterans Day attack on those who have told the truth about his distortion was itself accompanied by more distortion. Does the President really think the many generals, former top administration officials, and Senators from his own party who have joined over two- thirds of the country in questioning the President's handling of the war in Iraq--are they all unpatriotic, too? This is America, a place where we thrive on healthy debate. That is something we are trying to take to Afghanistan and Iraq. It is something we are trying to export to the rest of the world. The President does not have a monopoly on patriotism, and this is not a country where only those who agree with him support the troops or care about defending our country. You can care just as much about defending our country and have just as much support for the troops by being a critic of policies. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions is not pessimism, it is patriotism. And fighting for the right policy for our troops sends them exactly the right message that all of us here take very seriously the decision to put them in harm's way and that our democracy is alive and well. Ironically, the President even used the solemn occasion of Veterans Day to continue his campaign of misrepresenting the facts and throwing up smokescreens. His statement that Democrats saw and heard the same intelligence he did is just flat-out untrue, unless, of course, the President and the administration did not do their job and study the additional intelligence given only to them and not the Congress. As the Washington Post said on Saturday, Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than lawmakers who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. But that whole discussion is nothing more than an effort to distract attention from the issue that matters most and can be answered most simply: Did the administration go beyond what even the flawed intelligence would support in making the case for war? Did they use obviously inaccurate intelligence, despite being told clearly and repeatedly not to? Did they use the claims of known fabricators and rely on those claims of known fabricators? The answer to each and every one of these questions is yes. The only people who are now trying to rewrite that history are the President and his allies. There is no greater breach of the public trust than knowingly misleading the country into war. In a democracy, we simply cannot tolerate the abuse of this trust by the Government. To the extent this occurred in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, those responsible must be held accountable. That is precisely why Democrats have been pushing the Senate Intelligence Committee to complete a thorough and balanced investigation into the issue. When the President tried to pretend on Friday that the Intelligence Committee had already determined that he had not manipulated intelligence and misled the American public, he had to have known full well they have not yet reported on that very question. That is precisely why Democrats were forced to shut down the Senate in secret session and go into that secret session in order to make our colleagues on the other side of the aisle take this issue seriously. When the President said his opponents were throwing out false charges, he knew all too well that these charges are anything but false. But the President and the Republicans seem far more interested in confusing the issue and attacking their opponents than in getting honest answers. Let's be clear, Mr. President, let's be clear, my fellow Americans: There is no question that Americans were misled into the war in Iraq. Simply put, they were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction when he did not. The issue is whether they were misled intentionally. Just as there is a distinction between being wrong and being dishonest, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and making statements that you know are not supported by the intelligence. The bottom line is that the President and his administration did mislead America into war. In fact, the war in Iraq was and remains one of the great acts of misleading and deception in American history. The facts are incontrovertible. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans that no decision had really been made to go to war and that they would seriously pursue inspections when the evidence now strongly suggests that they had already decided as a matter of policy to take out Saddam Hussein, were anxious to do it for ideological reasons, and hoped that inspections, which Vice President Cheney had opposed and tried to prevent, would not get in their way. The President misled America about his intentions and the manner in which he would make his decision. We now know that his speech in Cincinnati right before the authorization vote was carefully orchestrated window dressing where, again, he misled America by promising, ``If we have to act, we will take every precaution that is possible, we will plan carefully, and we will go with our allies.'' We did not take every precaution possible, we did not plan--that is evident for every American to see--and except for Great Britain, we did not go in with our allies. The act of misleading was just going through the motions of inspections while it appears all the time the President just could not wait to kick Saddam Hussein out of power. The act of misleading was pretending to Americans the real concern was weapons of mass destruction when the evidence suggests the real intent was to finish the job his father wisely refused and remove Saddam Hussein in order to remake the Middle East for modern times. The act of misleading was saying in a Cincinnati speech that ``approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable,'' when the evidence suggests that all along the goal was always to replace Saddam Hussein through an invasion. For most of us in Congress, the goal was to destroy the weapons of mass destruction. For President Bush, weapons of mass destruction were just the first public relations means to the end of removing Saddam Hussein. For most of the rest of us, removing Saddam Hussein was incidental to the end of removing any weapons of mass destruction. In fact, the President was misleading America right up until 2 days before launching his war of choice when he told Americans that we had exhausted all other avenues. The truth is that on the Sunday preceding the Tuesday launch of the war, there were offers of Security Council members to pursue an alternative to war, but the administration, in its race and rush to go to war, rebuffed them, saying the time for diplomacy is over. By shortcutting the inspections process and sidestepping his own promises about planning, coalition building, and patience, the President used WMD as an excuse to rush to war, and that was an act of misleading contrary to everything the President told Americans about the walkup to war. The very worst that Members of Congress can be accused of is trusting the intelligence we were selectively given by this administration and taking the President at his word. Imagine that, taking a President of the United States at his word. But unlike this administration, there is absolutely no suggestion that the Congress intentionally went beyond what we were told by the facts. That is the greatest offense by this administration. Just look at the most compelling justification for war: ``Saddam's nuclear program and his connections with al-Qaida.'' The facts speak for themselves. The White House has admitted that the President told Congress and the American public in his State of the Union Address that Saddam was attempting to acquire fuel for nuclear weapons despite the fact that the CIA specifically told the administration three times in writing and verbally not to use this intelligence. Obviously, Democrats did not get that memo. In fact, similar statements were removed from a prior speech by the President, and Colin Powell refused to use it in his presentation to the U.N. This is not relying on faulty intelligence as Democrats did, it is knowingly and admittedly misleading the American public on a key justification for going to war. This is what the administration was trying so desperately to hide when it attacked Ambassador Wilson and compromised national security by outing his wife. It is shameful that to this day, Republicans continue to attack Ambassador Wilson rather than condemning the fact that those 16 words were ever spoken and that so many lies were told to cover it up. How are the same Republicans who tried to impeach a President over whether he misled a nation about an affair going to pretend it does not matter if the administration intentionally misled the country into war? The State of the Union was hardly an isolated event. In fact, it was part of a concerted campaign to twist the intelligence, to justify a war that had already been decided was more preferable. Again playing on people's fears after 9/11, the administration made statements about the relationship between al-Qaida and Iraq that went beyond what the intelligence supported. As recently reported by the New York Times in the Cincinnati Address, the President said, We have learned that Iraq has trained al-Qaida members in bombmaking and poisons and deadly gases, despite the fact that the Defense Intelligence Agency had previously concluded that the source was a fabricator. The President went on to say that Iraq has a growing fleet of unmanned and manned aerial vehicles that could be used to disburse chemical or biological weapons, despite the fact that the Air Force disagreed with that conclusion. As the Wall Street Journal reported: The Air Force dissent was kept secret, even as the President publicly made the opposite case before a congressional vote on the war resolution. That is two more memos that the Congress never got. In fact, when faced with the intelligence community's consensus conclusion that there was no formal relationship between Saddam and al-Qaida, the administration then proceeded to set up their own intelligence shop at DOD to get some answers that were better suited to their agenda. Again, there is a fundamental difference between believing incorrect intelligence and forcing or making up your own intelligence. Where would the Republicans and the President draw the line? How else would 70 percent of the American public be led to conclude that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11? That was not an accident. In fact, I remember correcting the President of the United States at our first debate when he said to America it was Saddam Hussein who attacked us. Why else did Vice President Cheney cite intelligence about a meeting between one of the 9/11 hijackers and Iraqis that the intelligence community and the 9/11 Commission concluded never took place? Why else make false statements about Saddam's ability to launch a chemical or biological weapon attack in under an hour without ever clearing that statement with the CIA, which in itself mistrusted the source and refused to include it in the National Intelligence Estimate? Why else would they say we would be greeted by liberators when their own intelligence reports said we could be facing a prolonged and determined insurgency? Why else tell Americans that Iraqi oil would pay for the invasion when they had to know that the dilapidated oil infrastructure would never permit that to happen? What about the President's promises to Congress that he would work with allies, that he would exhaust all options, that he would not rush to war? If the President wants to use quotes of mine from 2002, he might just look at the ones that were not the result of relying on faulty intelligence and trusting the President's word. As I said in my former statement before the authorizing vote--I wish the President had read this--if we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day. Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has proven not possible. In my speech at Georgetown on the eve of the war, I said: The United States should never go to war because it wants to. The United States should go to war because we have to. And we do not have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy, and earned the consent of the American people. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not always right but it can make America stronger, and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war. Today, our troops continue to bear the burden of that promise broken by this administration. We need to move forward with fixing the mess the administration has created in Iraq. I have laid out in detail on five or six occasions my views about exactly how we can accomplish that and how we can get our troops home within a reasonable period of time. But that does not excuse our responsibility to hold the administration accountable if they knowingly misled the country when American lives were at stake. We need to do both. Those colleagues on the other side of the aisle need to stop pretending that it does not matter if the administration stretched the truth beyond recognition and they need to start working to find out the real answers that the country deserves and the real leadership that our troops in Iraq deserve. They deserve it from a Commander in Chief, not just a ``campaigner in chief.'' I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I understand the Senator from Hawaii wants to speak for 5 minutes. I ask unanimous consent the Senator from Hawaii be recognized for 5 minutes and I be recognized at the conclusion.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. The order would be that Senator Rockefeller and Senator Roberts would introduce the modification on his amendment, at which point the debate would conclude with respect to the Kerry amendment. We would vote on the Kerry amendment prior to the Graham amendment, and then subsequently his unanimous consent request, as propounded, already would stand.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I do not think we need to get hung up on this at all. I think the unanimous consent request was absolutely correct in the order it proceeded. We simply now have to agree that Senators Rockefeller and Roberts would have a total of 5 minutes between them, and subsequently Senator Graham and Senator Bingaman would follow with their 15 minutes, approximately, and the votes would follow immediately thereafter.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to help the distinguished manager move the process as rapidly as possible. Senator Rockefeller has just pulled me aside. I will spend a few minutes with him now in the cloakroom, and we will try to report back as fast as we can. I hope we can dispose of it. If we were to proceed under a quorum call until then, it would be helpful.

Mr. KERRY. My understanding is we are talking about a second-degree amendment; is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wanted to ask the Senator from South Carolina if he would object to a unanimous consent that we allow Senator Rockefeller and Senator Roberts to take 5 minutes to introduce a modification, and then to stack the votes and have the vote on that amendment prior to his on the unanimous consent order.

Mr. KERRY. It would be difficult. I think it would take 5 minutes to handle what we have to do.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, sometime later today when we dispose of a few of the next amendments, Senator Levin, on behalf of leadership and a group of Senators on our side of the aisle--and we hope others might join in--will be submitting an amendment with respect to the issue of Iraq. I am pleased to join in that with them. I look forward to participating in that debate at that time. I have come to the Senate at this moment to introduce an amendment that lays out what, in my judgment, represents a comprehensive and new strategy that is essential for the President to implement in order to successfully complete the mission in Iraq, as well as to bring our troops home in a reasonable timeframe. At a news conference a week ago I referred to this in a speech I gave recently. I left Iraq departing on a C-130 from Mosul, together with Senator Warner and Senator Stevens. The three Senators and the staff, all of us, were gathered in this cavernous C-130. In the middle of the cargo hold was a simple aluminum coffin with a small American flag draped over it. We were bringing another American soldier home to his family and to his resting place. The starkness of the coffin in the center of that hold, and the silence--except for the din of the engines; believe me, there was a kind of silence notwithstanding--was a real-time, cold reminder of the consequences of decisions for which all of us as Senators bear responsibility. As we enter a make-or-break 6-month period in Iraq, that long journey of that soldier and 2,000-plus more of them remind us, all of us, about our responsibilities with respect to the troops in Iraq. It underscores the need to help this administration take steps that will bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe from an Iraq that is not permanently torn by conflict. Some say we should not ask tough questions because we are at war. I say, no. A time of war, that is precisely when you have to ask the hardest questions of all. It is essential, if we want to correct our course and do what is right for our troops, that instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over again, we ask those questions. No matter what the President says, asking tough questions is not pessimism. It is patriotism. We have a responsibility to our troops and our country and our conscience to be honest about where we should go from here. There is a way forward that gives us the best chance to both salvage a difficult situation in Iraq and to save American and Iraqi lives. With so much at stake, we all have a responsibility to follow the best way forward. No. 1, we cannot pull out precipitously, as many argue and call for, but also we cannot merely promise to stay as long as it takes. The promise simply to stay as long as it takes, in fact, exacerbates the situation. It is not a policy. To undermine the insurgency we must, instead, simultaneously pursue a political settlement that gives Sunnis a real stake in the future of Iraq, while at the same time reducing the sense of American occupation. That means a phased withdrawal of American troops as we meet a series of military and political benchmarks, starting, I have said, with a reduction of 20,000 troops over the holidays as we meet the first benchmark--the completion of the December elections. Earlier today, my good friend, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, made a speech in which he mischaracterized my plan to bring our troops home within a reasonable timeframe and to succeed in Iraq. He mischaracterized how one arrived at 20,000 troops. The fact is, that is a benchmark. It is a benchmark set by this administration itself. The fact is, most of last year, during which time the administration says we have adequate troops to do the job, we had about 138,000 troops in Iraq. The fact is, for the purposes of the constitutional referendum and for the purposes of the election, the administration upped the number of troops in order to guarantee security for the purpose of those two events. I have said specifically that when those two events are completed successfully, and with the increased numbers of Iraqis trained, there is no excuse for not being in a position to go from the current 161,000 down to the 138,000, where we were before, where our generals told us we had enough troops to do the job. That figure is set not by any arbitrary standard but by the accomplishment of the specific benchmark. It is also critical that we send this signal to the Iraqi people that we do not desire a permanent occupation and that Iraqis themselves must fight for Iraq. History shows again and again that guns alone do not end an insurgency, and guns alone, particularly, will not end this insurgency. The real struggle in Iraq is not what the President has described again and again as the war on terror as we know it against al-Qaida. The real struggle in Iraq is Sunni versus Shiite. It is a struggle that has gone on for years with oppressor and oppressed, and it will only be settled by a political solution. No political solution can be achieved when the antagonists can rely on indefinite large-scale presence of occupying American combat troops. The reality is our military presence in vast and visible numbers has become part of the problem, not just the solution. Our own generals are telling us this in open hearings of the Senate. Our generals understand this well. GEN George Casey, our top military commander in Iraq, recently told Congress that our large military presence ``feeds the notion of occupation'' and ``extends the amount of time that it will take for Iraqi security forces to become self-reliant,'' and Richard Nixon's Secretary of Defense, Melvin Laird, breaking a 30-year silence, writes: Our presence is what feeds the insurgency, and our gradual withdrawal would feed the confidence and the ability of average Iraqis to stand up to the insurgency. It comes down to this: An open-ended declaration ``to stay as long as it takes,'' lets Iraqi factions maneuver for their own political advantage by making us stay as long as they want. It becomes an excuse for billions of American tax dollars to be sent to Iraq and siphoned off into the coffers of cronyism and corruption. When I was last in Iraq, at a dinner put on by the Ambassador and others with the Minister of Defense--the Minister of Interior, the Prime Minister, and others--we sat and listened while they told us themselves of the corruption that has been taking place in the disbursement of American taxpayer funds. This administration needs to pay attention to that corruption. The administration must also use all of the leverage in America's arsenal-- our diplomacy, the presence of our troops, our reconstruction money, all of the diplomacy--in order to convince the Shiites and the Kurds to address the legitimate Sunni concerns about regional autonomy and oil revenues and to make Sunnis accept the reality that they will no longer dominate Iraq. We cannot and we should not do this alone. The administration must immediately call a conference of Iraq's neighbors: Britain, Turkey, other key NATO allies, and Russia. The absence of legitimate international effort with respect to this is, frankly, absolutely extraordinary. I am not alone in calling for that. Republicans, colleagues on the other side of the aisle, Senator Hagel, others, have talked about the need for an international leverage in order to help resolve this issue. Together we have to implement a collective strategy to bring the parties in Iraq to a sustainable political compromise that also includes mutual security guarantees among Iraqis. To maximize our diplomacy, the President should appoint a special envoy to bolster Ambassador Khalilzad's commendable efforts. To enlist the support of Iraqi Sunni neighbors, we should commit to a new regional security structure. I have heard from countless numbers of members of government in the region that the old security arrangement that existed prior to the invasion of Iraq has, in fact, been altered by that invasion. And today there are great uncertainties with respect to the Gulf States--Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and obviously uncertainties with the saber rattling of Iran and the problems with Syria. We ought to be committing our efforts to create a new regional security structure that will include improved security assistance programs, joint exercises, and provide a greater confidence to the region about long-term strategy. To show Iraqi Sunnis the benefits of participating in the political process, we should press these countries to set up a reconstruction fund specifically for the majority Sunni areas. The absence of specific economic transformation remains the heart of one of the reasons for people to move toward insurgency rather than the governance process. We need to also jump-start our lagging reconstruction efforts by providing necessary civilian personnel to do the job, standing up civil-military reconstruction teams throughout the country, streamlining the disbursement of funds to the provinces, expanding job creation programs, and strengthening the capacity of government ministries. Prime Minister Blair, a few weeks ago, suggested that different countries actually adopt a ministry. I know in the Ministry of Finance there are precious few U.S. personnel helping that finance ministry to be able to do the job of administering payrolls and managing the budget of the country. It is unbelievable that at a time when our troops are making such a valiant effort to provide for this transformation we are absent the kind of diplomatic and civilian personnel necessary to make those things happen. On the military side, we must make it clear now that we do not want permanent military bases in Iraq. We still have not done that. In the absence of doing that, we lend credence to the notion of occupation and of long-term designs on oil, on land, or other designs. Those lend themselves to the recruitment process. The administration must immediately give Congress and the American people a detailed plan for the transfer of military and police responsibilities on a sector-by-sector basis to Iraqis so the majority of our combat forces can be withdrawn--ideally as a target by the end of next year. Simultaneously, the President needs to put the training of Iraqi security forces on a 6-month wartime footing and ensure that the Iraqi government has the budget to deploy them. The administration should accept the long-standing efforts and offers of Egypt, Jordan, France, and Germany to do more training. They should prod the new Iraqi government to ask for a multinational force to help protect Iraq's borders until a capable national Army is formed. And that force, if sanctioned by the United Nations, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and countries like India, and it would be a critical step in stemming the tide of insurgents and money into Iraq, especially from Syria. Finally, we must alter the deployment of American troops themselves. I believe deeply that special operations obviously need to continue. They must continue in order to pursue specific intelligence needs and in order to ferret out those jihadist and other hard-core insurgents that we have in Tehran. But the vast majority of our troops could easily move to a rear guard, garrison kind of status in order to provide security backup. You do not need to send the young Americans on search-and-destroy mission that invite alienation and deepen the risks they face. If the President were to do this, then the Iraqis would far more rapidly, according to our own generals, begin to assume the responsibilities which we are asking them to and which they need to and which, in the end, are the only way to be successful. If the President refuses to move in this course, ultimately it is our responsibility, the U.S. Congress, to debate and ultimately help to put this policy in the right direction. If we take these steps, there is, frankly, no reason that within 12 to 15 months we couldn't be able to take on a new role--a role as an ally, not an occupier. And only then will we have provided our troops with what they really deserve, which is leadership equal to our soldiers' sacrifice. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Is it my understanding that upon the disposition of the next amendment, this will be the pending business?

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to reserve the time on my amendment, but that we set the amendment aside and proceed immediately to the second-degree amendment of Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I do not object.

Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, are we now in morning business?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I send a bill to the desk for appropriate referral to the committee.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, in recent weeks the American people and Members of the Senate have heard allegations about the existence of secret prison facilities operated by the U.S. Government in various countries around the world. Now, I know many of my colleagues take this matter very seriously. The Central Intelligence Agency has reportedly requested a Justice Department investigation of how classified intelligence information made its way into print. Clearly, the revelation of the potential of these programs is a serious national security matter. It is one we can all agree on, no matter where we sit. No one in this Chamber underestimates the seriousness of the war on radical Islamic terrorists. It is a war we have to win, we must win. And no one underestimates the depravity and the viciousness of our enemies. We do not need to look any further than the bombings last night in Jordan to once again be reminded of the kind of enemy we face--an enemy willing to always target the innocent. We know that success in any war requires the informed consent of the American people. And in an issue as sensitive as this, that informed consent can only be derived from the Congress's full and appropriate understanding and involvement in these issues. That in and of itself requires information and cooperation from the administration so we in Congress can provide effective and informed oversight. That begins by knowing what the money we authorize and appropriate is being used to do. The American people demand no less than that. The fact is, we are not aware; we are not as a Congress performing that proper oversight. The vast majority of us first heard about the possibility of clandestine detention facilities in the Washington Post last Wednesday. Since then, we have heard that this may have been discussed by Vice President Cheney in a meeting with the Republican caucus. That obviously comes from statements by people at the caucus made publicly. If, as has been reported by Senator Lott, members of the Republican caucus can hear about these facilities from the Vice President of the United States, then the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence ought to be able to receive a full accounting. So the amendment I offer today seeks to simply assert, appropriately, congressional oversight in this matter by requiring two classified reports--one by the Secretary of Defense and one by the Director of National Intelligence--to the appropriate committees, detailing the involvement of the Department of Defense and the intelligence community in these activities if, indeed, there is any. Not later than 60 days after enactment, the Secretary of Defense will provide a classified report to the House and Senate Armed Services Committees of any knowledge or participation in the operation of clandestine facilities by the Department of Defense, including support provided by the Department of Defense to any other part of the U.S. Government or foreign government. The Secretary of Defense must also report on whether the Department has transported any individuals to or from such a facility, and whether detainees in such facilities are to be tried by military commission. Finally, this report will include details about detainees held at DOD facilities for other Government agencies. The second classified report required by this amendment is from the Director of National Intelligence to the Intelligence Committees of both the House and the Senate. In it, the Director will provide a detailed accounting of the nature, cost, and operation of any clandestine prison or detention facility operated by the U.S. Government, regardless of location, where detainees from the global war on terror are being or have been held. Now, let me be clear: We are not passing judgment on the merit or the value of these facilities. What we are saying is we need to know and understand what the policy of our country is, what is being done with taxpayer money, and what are the appropriate accounting and oversight mechanisms with respect to this. In its reporting, the Washington Post said: The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony [about the facilities]. My colleagues will note that both of these reports would be classified, both of them would be limited to the committees of jurisdiction. This is not about open testimony. It is about Congress doing its appropriate job through the appropriate committees. I do not have any doubt that in the American public's mind we are all united and determined to win the war against radical Islamic terrorists. But I do know that any administration that tries to keep Congress in the dark ultimately winds up damaging the very effort we are engaged in. We have seen this all through history. This goes back for years in the relationship of oversight by the Congress and efforts by administrations to undertake clandestine initiatives on their own. The executive branch cannot win this by itself. It needs Congress to be invested. It needs Congress to be knowledgeable. It needs Congress to act on behalf of the American people. And in this case, the simple job of oversight is critical to our ability to maintain the consensus necessary for our Nation. We have seen too often too many instances of efforts that go awry that cost us leverage as a nation, cost us leverage with other communities, and ultimately may even cost us lives of Americans because they do go awry without the proper consent. We also do better as a country in these kinds of efforts when Members of both parties across the aisle have joined together in a foreign policy that represents the broad consensus of the American people and where all of us are accepting responsibility for our actions. I would hope my colleagues, the distinguished chairman and ranking member, would accept this amendment because I think it acts in the best interests of this institution and of our Nation. With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.