John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we ought to be concerned about the missed opportunities that are related to trade adjustment assistance. The Senate has supported trade adjustment assistance. If people lose their jobs, they have the right to expect that we are going to try to help transition. We have done that because we have understood the movement to open markets means this economic transition. Guess what. Once again, the administration has ignored the will of the entire Finance Committee on this issue, which voted to include TAA for service workers in the CAFTA agreement. In the Commerce Committee, Senator Ensign held an excellent hearing on America's competitiveness. Our witness was the administration's point person on manufacturing, Al Frink. He told us he believes there is a shortage of skilled workers in America. And that shortage of skilled workers is hurting our economy. What the Under Secretary did not say, or maybe he did not know, is that the Bush administration has resisted congressional efforts to fund worker retraining and vocational education, which would, in fact, address the skilled worker shortage. The administration's indifference to competitiveness goes deeper. We have a tax policy that rewards American and multinational companies for housing operations abroad instead of housing them here in the United States. It is hard to imagine a more backward tax policy. We should end it. But for this administration, it is not only not a priority, it is not even an afterthought. We also do not adequately fund the basic science and research that will produce the revolutionary technologies and products of tomorrow. Not surprisingly, fewer and fewer American students are choosing to study science and engineering. The Bush administration has proposed cutting Federal research and development spending for the first time in 10 years. The story is much the same in our public schools. Bill Gates has called our high schools obsolete because they fail to prepare our kids to compete. Alan Greenspan said much the same thing before the Finance Committee last week. Yet every year the administration refuses to fully fund No Child Left Behind, seeming perfectly content to see those kids not study science and engineering, or perhaps not study at all. And all of this time, the administration negotiates trade deals that remain indifferent to American workers and fail to defend our legitimate interests at home, all the while refusing to adequately invest in science, research, training, and ignoring the problems that drain our businesses, such as health care. The competition is hard at work at every single one of these. China and India will probably turn out 300,000 engineers each over the next year--way ahead of the United States. While our shortsighted policies stunt our competitive advantage, China, India, and all of Asia and Europe have developed long-term investment plans, long-term infrastructure investment plans, long-term trade, and long-term educational plans, all aimed at one thing: eliminating America's economic dominance. They have national programs aimed at educating workers, reducing capital costs, and attracting businesses. And we are falling dangerously behind. I was visited just the other day by the new president of MIT. Every Senator here, I know, respects that institution. She was deeply concerned. She expressed this enormous concern about what is happening to the competitive advantage of our great science and technology institutes across the country and our commitment to science as a whole as a Government. In the Commerce Committee, we heard how Japan and the European Union are implementing large-scale, long-range R&D projects aimed at developing leading-edge commercial technologies. For example, from 1995 through 2001, the emerging economies of China, South Korea, and Taiwan increased their investments in research and development by approximately 140 percent. It is urgent we consider real measures to advance America's competitiveness and forge a new global consensus on trade in our country. That global consensus begins with a set of rules that makes sense to the American worker, rules that work for the American worker, even as we open new markets, which we must do. We can do better than this trade agreement. We need to. Mr. President, the bottom line is that CAFTA is not a good deal for America. It is a good deal for some companies. It is a good deal for some investors and shareholders. It is a good deal even for some of the countries that are a party to it. But it is not a good deal for the American worker. So I hope colleagues will help America stay at the top, while making trade fair for Americans. And I hope colleagues will join in saying no to this agreement in its current shape. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is interesting, listening to the Senator from Idaho, who, as he said, came to this decision from a different place than the Senator from North Dakota, and listening to the Senator from North Dakota; both of them have raised issues they tried to get the administration to respond to. I am very sympathetic with the sense they have that the administration just didn't respond to them and really was unwilling to try to accommodate what I think are very reasonable concepts. In May of 2003 I sent a letter to Ambassador Zoellick, asking the administration to delay tabling CAFTA's labor chapter until Congress had an opportunity to consult. I wrote again in October 2003, raising similar concerns. All we got was a very sort of abrupt and short letter that basically never engaged in the kind of discussion that could have benefited all of us so we would not have the kind of divide we have in the Senate and in the country today. During the debate of TPA in 2002, I offered an amendment to allow communities to be able to preserve their health and safety laws which were being challenged under NAFTA. Even now, with a lawsuit pending against the State of California for attempting to protect their drinking water--imagine that. The State of California wants to protect its drinking water and the interests of its citizens. But nevertheless they included the very same provisions that have led to that kind of challenge in CAFTA. In the summer of 2003, I suggested to the administration, in the context of the Chile and Singapore agreements, that the labor standards achieved in those agreements would not be adequate for CAFTA. The reason for that is in Chile, in Singapore, and in Australia--all three agreements which I supported last year--you have capacity for enforcement. You have specificity with respect to the laws on the books that can be enforced. And you have a record of that enforcement. All three of those ingredients--capacity, specificity of law, and record of enforcement--are absent in too many of the countries that are involved in this agreement. We tried to get the Trade Representative to understand that there is an evenhanded way to open a fair agreement to trade but to address those kinds of concerns. Regrettably the labor standards in the Chile and Singapore agreements may be good for those countries, but they should not be applied to CAFTA because of the lack of those three critical ingredients. Even in this last month, as CAFTA was considered in the Senate Finance Committee, I offered an amendment that specifically laid out what the administration could do to fix this agreement. That amendment lost on a tie vote--10 to 10 was the division in the Finance Committee, in no small part a division that was that close because the administration opposed it. So I regret enormously that we are where we are with respect to this agreement at this point in time. I have been in the Senate now for 21 years, and I was one of those who was on the cutting edge and leading the effort in our party to try to make it clear that we ought to trade and that it is important to the United States. I still believe that. I voted for NAFTA, the Uruguay Round, China PNTR, and the many bilateral agreements negotiated by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Last year, while I was not here to vote, I supported the Chile, Singapore, and Australia agreements precisely for the reason that they had a strong ability and a strong record of enforcement, that they had very specific laws, and that they had the capacity to be able to enforce those laws. There are some colleagues who have always opposed each and every one of these trade agreements; and there are some who have been for everything no matter what the balance is. For a number of years now I have been trying to suggest not as a matter of ideology, not as a matter of party label, because I don't think this should have a party label, but as a matter of common sense, I have been trying to suggest that the consensus we have built globally for trade, a consensus built around the notion that, yes, there are some winners and losers, but you do your best to mitigate the impact on losers, that you have sufficient trade adjustment assistance, that you do enough education and training, that you do enough with health care and COBRA payments so people can cover themselves with health care during a transition, that you ease the pain, so to speak. At the same time, as you attempt to maximize the rising of all boats in the tide that we proverbially think about, the rising tide lifts all boats, the fact is, in many countries, it is not lifting all boats. The standard of living does not move at the rate it ought to. The standards for health, safety, labor organizations, or environment do not change in the way they ought to. All of these are quality-of-life issues and value issues, fundamental value issues that ought to be part of our agreements. This is not just basic economics. Particularly when you look at the chart showing the deficits in trade that are growing, it is hard to make a new economic argument about it. The fact is there are larger issues at stake in a trade agreement. For rigid ideological reasons, over the years, we have had tension in the Senate and a fight over whether you embrace some of these other considerations in a trade agreement. Part of the reason we have had such intense reactions to trade meetings around the world, with riots in Seattle and with other demonstrations around the globe, is because of the raging pace of globalization and the discomfort it brings to a whole bunch of people who feel powerless to be able to do something about it. If we, the people who have the power to do something about it, do not choose to do so, we leave people out in the cold and hurting even more. The fact is, the consensus--which has been global, that has helped us to be able to build the trade structure--is fraying. It is fraying not just in the United States but it is fraying in other countries as well. The administration had a unique opportunity in this agreement to try to address some of those concerns. We all understand that opening markets sets in motion economic transition that everyone here knows creates winners and losers at the same time. While you may want to mask some of that impact, the personal impact to people's lives with an unemotional language of economics in the Senate, the fact is if you go to Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Idaho, North Dakota, or other parts of the country, it is having a profound impact on communities. It is having a profound impact on the fabric of life in America and on our ability to be able to have a long-term strategy for success. We all know the numbers. Since 2001 we have shed nearly 3 million manufacturing jobs. We have endured 42 consecutive months of economic decline in the manufacturing sector. Fifteen years ago, 20 years ago, 30 percent of America's economic pace was services and 70 percent was manufacturing. Today, it is 30 percent manufacturing and 70 percent services. Many of those services are not the kind of high value-added paying jobs Americans have come to expect. We have long understood if we want a broad consensus for free trade in America, we have to make these trade agreements work for all Americans, not just for the winners, but for the people who temporarily are in the losing position. In the 1990s we began to respond to that. First we looked at the trade agreements themselves and we decided we must protect American workers from unfair competition. American workers should compete on the basis of pay and skill and effort. But it is unfair, fundamentally unfair, to ask Americans to compete against child labor or against habitually depressed wages or habitually unfair working conditions. In the Jordan agreement of 2001, President Clinton had come to understand that in the later part of the 1990s. His administration moved specifically to include these other values within the four corners of a trade agreement. We gave basic labor protections the same standing we give in the protections we provide to corporate America. In other words, we made a new bargain with the American worker in order to hold on to the consensus. The bargain was very simple: We will protect your economic interests, your job from unconscionable competition such as child labor, just as we protect a corporation's economic interests, which are its product, from dishonest competition such as copyright theft. It seemed like a very fair bargain, a very fair form of protection. In CAFTA, we go backwards from that standard. We go backwards from that standard for no explicable reason. Once again, our corporations get the protections they need with an elaborate system of rules, complaints, appeals, compensation, and strict enforcement. But all our workers get is some flowery language with no teeth behind it. We are going to hear that CAFTA has the strongest labor provision of any trade agreement. That is what some folks have been trying to say. Look at this agreement, read the language, and you realize that is once again spin. It comes down to this: There is only one labor provision in CAFTA that is enforceable. It is a nation's commitment to ``enforce its own laws.'' Now, that sounds good, or it sounds like something, but in reality this provision does nothing to protect workers because, No. 1, there is no stipulation whatever as to what those laws are; No. 2, some of those laws are completely inadequate; No. 3, there is no enforcement capacity in some of those countries to enforce even the inadequate laws, if you can understand what they are. There could have been a stipulation as to what they are. There could have been an understanding in the four corners of this agreement as to what standard we would try to reach. Moreover, if the provision does lead to an attempt at enforcement, guess what. The maximum so-called penalty is $15 million. There is a cap. There is no cap on the corporate penalty. But there is a maximum cap. Guess what. It is a so-called penalty because the fine is then returned to the offending country, ostensibly, to be used to fix the problem, but without any real enforcement mechanism to do so. Senator Bingaman will say to the Senate that he has secured an agreement from Trade Administrator Portman that they will put $40 million a year into the enforcement efforts. Again, if you do not have adequate laws and you do not have adequate specificity and you are enforcing in a structure that has a cap on the payment and the payment goes to the country that offended, you are not enforcing the standards of workers. There is another labor provision in CAFTA. It asks a nation to strive to eliminate ``the worst forms of child labor.'' We do not even define what the gradations of the forms of child labor are. Just the worst forms of child labor. There shouldn't be any form of child labor. But we are only going to seek to strive to get rid of the worst forms, sweatshop conditions and other problems. But if a nation fails to do that, we can only consult. In other words, we can talk about ending child labor in a CAFTA country, but we cannot take any action to end child labor in a CAFTA country. That is wrong. That is contrary to the values of our country and to the fundamental values of American workers. Words alone are not going to do anything for kids who are suffering in work sweatshops. They will not do anything for the American workers who lose their jobs as a consequence of being undercut by that level of competition. I ask my colleagues to answer a simple question: Why is there a double standard that we are going back to when we passed an agreement that set a higher standard, and there is no showing as to why that standard hasn't worked, shouldn't work, and shouldn't be part of this agreement? Why do Americans not have the same standing as a corporation? Why don't they have the same standing to end child labor or sweatshop conditions that corporations have to go out and protect copyright or patent theft? Why the double standard that punishes American workers? I share with many of my colleagues a longstanding commitment to the development of the well-being of Central America, but I am concerned that CAFTA is insufficient to provide for steady and balanced economic growth in the region. The administration claims supporting CAFTA is a security issue. I agree, it is a security issue. It is about the economic security of some of the more vulnerable economies in our hemisphere. We have to ensure that a trade agreement with Central American countries grows their economies, protects their workers, helps them preserve their sensitive ecosystems, and, most importantly, encourages balanced and widespread economic growth and opportunity for all of the people in the region. The most troubling aspect of CAFTA is that its shortcomings, particularly the administration's indifference to our own workers, are part of a larger problem. I will speak about that for a minute. What CAFTA underscores is the need for a national policy to make sure America is competitive, the leader in the global economy of today and of tomorrow. The reality is, there is no comprehensive strategy to meet the needs of a fast-changing playing field. What am I talking about? Certainly when we negotiate trade deals with nations that have an insufficient or lackluster labor record, you have to give citizens the same standing to be able to end child labor that corporations have to end copyright and patent theft. It seem to me it is a pro-trade, free-trade policy that builds consensus and which considers all Americans. But it was refused in this agreement. After you have the agreement in place, we need to defend America's interests. This is true of all of our agreements. The administration has to stop giving in to competitors. The Clinton administration brought an average of 11 trade cases to the World Trade Organization per year. This administration has brought a total of 12 cases in the first 4\1/2\ years. The administration also needs--and many colleagues have spoken about this--to take action against China's currency manipulation. We keep hearing about it. People talk about it. And they talk about it. And they talk about it. And they talk about it some more. The Senate has actually voted and gone on record that the administration needs to do something other than talk. But nothing has happened. In the administration's recent dealings with China, according to our trade representative, counterfeiting and piracy in China are at epidemic levels. That piracy costs U.S. companies $20 to $25 billion annually. We are told the problem is getting worse, not better. According to press reports in May, the United States presented the Chinese with a list of modest proposals to curtail intellectual property violations. Modest proposals. We gave them a list. The Chinese rejected the proposal outright. What did the administration do? They did not respond by pressing the Chinese. They did not respond by taking any particular action. Guess what they did. They told United States companies to go file lawsuits in Chinese courts to defend their rights. It is insulting and it is ridiculous. It is not just putting the agreements in place, it is also enforcing them that the American worker is asking for. In addition to that, we have all heard about the Chinese firm recently seeking to purchase Unocal, an American energy company. What many people do not know is that Chinese company borrowed money from the Chinese Government in order to make the bid. It should not come as a surprise since it is 80 percent Government owned. That has upset a lot of people and generated a lot of press. But it ought to concern us even more that we are doing the same thing in the United States in the following way. Since the start of the Bush administration, the Federal Government has borrowed billions of dollars to fund our national debt and cover questionable and, some think, even reckless tax choices in fiscal policy. Billions of dollars have been borrowed from--guess where--none other than the Chinese Government. Mr. President, I yield myself an additional 5 minutes off their time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last Thursday, June 23, the full Senate voted to pass amendment No. 825, the small business and farm energy emergency relief amendment of 2005, to the Energy bill, H.R. 6. I thank my colleagues for supporting my amendment. I want to also thank the cosponsors, Senators Reed, Snowe, Kohl, Levin, Baucus, Jeffords, Harkin, Pryor, Schumer, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and Lieberman. Mr. President, the purpose of this amendment is to help small businesses and small farms struggling to make ends meet with the record high cost of energy--natural gas, heating oil, gasoline, propane, kerosene. We can do this very easily by making those small businesses eligible to apply for low-cost disaster loans through the Small Business Administration's Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program. To help small farms and agricultural businesses, Senator Kohl has included a provision making them eligible for loans through a similar loan program at the Department of Agriculture. It also includes a provision by Senator Levin, passed unanimously last time this was considered in Committee and the full Senate to promote the use of alternative energy sources. The need for this type of safety net is clear. The volatile and significant rise in cost for these fuels over the past several years has threatened the economic viability and survival of many small businesses. For example, last week the spot price for oil hit a record high of $58.90, a cost when adjusted for inflation that has not been seen in over 20 years. This is raising the price of gasoline, with the average U.S. price now at $2.16 per gallon, an increase of 22 cents compared to last year. The cost of home heating oil has jumped as much as 45 percent, and the natural gas market is likely to tighten over the next few months as summer cooling demand picks up. Prices are projected to continue to increase as the winter heating season boosts natural gas demand. As we've heard in testimony after testimony, these prices hurt small manufacturers that rely heavily on natural gas and cite energy costs as one of the top three factors driving them out of business. These prices hurt farmers that rely on natural gas and propane and gasoline to run their farms and produce crops. And these prices hurt small heating fuel dealers in the northeast. Most small companies typically have small cash flows and narrow operating margins and simply don't have the reserves to compensate for significant and unexpected spikes in operating costs. For those businesses financially harmed by the energy prices, they need access to capital to mitigate or avoid serious losses or going out of business. Commercial lenders typically won't make loans to these small businesses because they often don't have the increased cash flow to demonstrate the ability to repay the loan. There has been a bipartisan push for this assistance in Congress twice in the past few years. In the 107th Congress, in 2001, I introduced virtually the same bill, S. 295, and was joined by 34 cosponsors to pass it in the full Senate. Of those who voted to pass the bill, 77 are still in the Senate, including 37 Republicans. Most recently, in November, during the consideration of the mega funding bill, the fiscal year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations conference report, Senator Reed, as head of the Senate Northeast-Midwest Coalition, worked to have a version of this amendment adopted as part of the the bill. Seventeen Senators signed a letter to chairmen Stevens and Gregg, and ranking members Byrd and Hollings requesting its inclusion. It makes no sense, but out of 3,000 pages of legislation and almost $400 billion in spending, this assistance was not included because the administration objected. The little guy was not helped. As frustrating as that is, and while it would have been most helpful to these businesses--from small heating oil dealers to small manufacturers--to enact the legislation in November when the prices were at an all-time high, we can still be helpful now. In that spirit, along with my colleagues mentioned earlier, I am very pleased to have offered the Small Business and Farm Energy Emergency Relief Act of 2005, S. 269, as an amendment to that energy bill. I ask my colleagues in the Senate and House to preserve the provision in the final bill--conference--as they work out differences between the two sides. Mr. President, we have built a very clear record over the years on how this legislation would work and why it is needed. I am glad that my colleagues have gotten behind this bill and have put us one step close to making this law in the near future. In the past, this assistance has received bipartisan support and I am glad that this year is not different. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of a bipartisan letter of support and a copy of the cosponsors from past bills be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Hawaii. Before taking time to speak in morning business, I have a couple of procedural items I need to do. One, I thank the Senator from Washington, speaking as a veteran and as somebody who has introduced an amendment that I am about to ask be withdrawn. In fact, let me do that if I may, Mr. President. I call up amendment No. 1029.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is an amendment I had been working on in an effort to try to add money back to the VA, and I am delighted that the appropriators, led by Senator Byrd and Senator Murray, have undertaken to do that now. So I would ask unanimous consent--I am now a cosponsor of their amendment--that I withdraw this amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Senator Murray could not be more correct, and I thank her on behalf of veterans all across the country who understand how this game is affecting their lives. The fact is that this funding is one of the hidden costs of the war and now no longer hidden, and veterans are beginning to feel it and VA hospitals across our Nation. She has been a tireless, tenacious advocate on behalf of veterans, and we are all very grateful to her and grateful to Senator Byrd for their leadership. (The remarks of Senator Kerry are printed in today's Record under ``Morning Business.'')

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, if I may, Senator Akaka had asked if he might make some comments on the amendment of Senator Murray, and so I would ask unanimous consent that I can yield to Senator Akaka for 3 minutes and then hold the floor after that.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, George Washington said more than 215 years ago that, ``The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional as to how they perceive the Veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their country.'' Today, our veterans are appreciated, but we learned last week that they are not necessarily treated adequately when it comes to health- care. The Department of Veterans Affairs, VA, disclosed it needs at least an additional $1 billion to provide healthcare to our Nation's veterans. If we don't do something about it, our veterans will be in jeopardy of having necessary healthcare delayed or even denied due to lack of funds. We must address this situation without delay. Our troops risk their lives every day defending freedom, and sacrificing to keep us safe. If we fail to meet our responsibility to them, and provide them the healthcare they need, we fail to honor their service. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting Senator Murray's important amendment to immediately cover this shortfall by providing $1.42 billion to the VA for veterans' healthcare under an emergency designation so we can ensure today's veterans receive the benefits they have earned fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope that none of us would tolerate the injustice of soldiers who have bled for our country being denied the medical care they need. While the VA is replacing the lost funds, they do so at a great cost. The VA is cutting corners by squeezing other accounts. Those accounts provide funds for non-recurring maintenance and equipment--funding critical tasks like repairing leaky roofs, or purchasing equipment ranging from photocopiers to defibrillators. Our VA hospitals should be shrines of gratitude to those who have borne the battle. They should not want for anything--not new roofs, not photocopiers--and most certainly not defibrillators. At a time when a new generation of veterans is returning from war, set to use the VA in historic numbers, I hope that we will heed the words of Commander James E. Sursely. Commander Sursely spoke for the 1.2 million members of the Disabled American Veterans organization when he called upon Congress to ``. . . act quickly to stem the flow of red ink that threatens health care for today's veterans and thousands of men and women injured or disabled during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.'' Our veterans are humble Americans who every day exude the quiet strength that comes from having served their country when it needed them. Today, they need us. I ask all my colleagues to join me in supporting the Murray amendment, and do right by our veterans without delay. Let's not waste another moment in answering this call. Let's fill this gap now. Let's meet their need. Let's not forget that a new generation of veterans is watching to see what we do today.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the order we agreed on was to recognize the Chair. I do not want to abuse that process. I will talk beyond 3, but it will not be that extensive. I ask the Chair if it meets with his approval to change the order so that I speak now and the Chair will speak when he is relieved.

Mr. KERRY. I can't tell you exactly, 15 or 20 minutes, somewhere in that vicinity.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate that. I will follow the Senator from Washington.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to speak. It is a little longer than 10 minutes. I do not know exactly how long.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the understanding was the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Hawaii, the Senator from Massachusetts, and then the Chair. It should be around 3 o'clock, and if the Senate proceeds now, we should be able to get there.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, tonight, as we all know, President Bush is going to speak to the Nation about the situation in Iraq. I think that we all have a pretty good sense of much of what he is going to say. He will talk, as he should, about the extraordinary courage of our troops across the world; he will talk, as he should, about the march of democracy; and he will speak with pride about Iraqi elections and the end of tyranny. He will stress, as we all share, the importance of the war on terror. All of us in this Chamber stand in awe of the courage of our troops and all of us in this Chamber and in this country are passionate about democracy. But the fact is that honoring our troops and extolling the virtue of democracy, those words alone are not going to be enough to improve the situation and the reality of the perilous direction that we are currently headed in Iraq. What we need are not just the words extolling the virtues of things with which we all agree. What we need is a policy that is going to address the complex and in some ways self-inflicted predicament that we face today. The best way to honor troops, Mr. President, the best way to protect our troops, is to provide them with the best policy possible. The fact is that that is not what we have today. Yesterday, I attended the funeral of Christopher Piper of Marblehead, MA, special forces, who died of wounds from an IED, and two other of his fellow soldiers died previously in that same incident. The overwhelming outpouring of emotion and patriotism--kids holding flags along the sides of the streets, people, good citizens, patriots all, coming out to say goodbye to their native son--was moving beyond words. Christopher Piper, and all of the soldiers like him currently serving and all those who will go over there, deserve a Government leadership that makes the best decisions possible to be able to provide them the greatest security possible to accomplish the mission as rapidly and effectively as possible. Today, I regret to say, the experience in Iraq has proven again and again to America and the world that we have no realistic comprehensive strategy to reduce the risks to our soldiers and to achieve our goals. While our military has done--and continues to do--a superb job, our civilian leadership has not, and our soldiers are paying the price every single day. It is time for a realistic plan for success. To achieve that plan, we have to begin by tearing down the wall of arrogance. When the Vice President absurdly claims the insurgency is in its last throes, it insults the common sense and intelligence of the American people, and he diminishes our stature in the world. How can we expect the Iraqi people to take us seriously and do their part when the White House says the insurgency is fading, and yet Iraqis live in constant fear--explosions waking them up in the night, reminding them of the danger inherent in a short walk to work or to school the next morning. I know that we should not dwell on mistakes. We need to understand, however, the consequences of the decisions we have made and our ability to effectively move forward because the only way you can move forward and have a comprehensive strategy is to understand where you have been. With allies reading the Downing Street memo and the American people increasingly aware that the rationalization for war changed midstream, it now becomes that much harder to rally the collective strength of the Nation and the world to our cause. We have to acknowledge the past in order to overcome it because the truth is that, until this moment, the stubbornness of this administration has made a difference. It hurts our chances for success. It leads to frustrated expectations of Americans themselves. It makes it much more difficult for the Iraqi people to embrace the cause, and it makes it so much easier for sidelined nations to turn their back on a common interest and say: OK, it is their deal, let them go solve it because they don't seem to understand it. The bottom line is that when it comes to war and the safety of American troops, there is no time for excuses. All of our troops deserve the best we can provide, and they deserve it now. This is the time for the administration to tell the truth about what is happening on the ground and be open to new ideas about how we are going to get the job done. Admitting mistakes is a necessary hurdle and a constructive tool for this administration if it wants to build the strength necessary to get it right in Iraq. Admitting mistakes paves the way for elected officials and the American people to come together and to move forward. Admitting mistakes actually lays the groundwork for the climate of cooperation that allows allies to add to our strength. Admitting mistakes eases the concerns of the Iraqi people and helps us make them understand that there will be no success unless they embrace the burden of their own future. And that includes acknowledging that Iraq today is something that it was not before the war--a breeding ground for jihadists. Today, there are 16,000 to 20,000 insurgents, and the number of jihadists among them is growing, according to our own estimates. So this is a growing challenge, and we need to take immediate steps to address it. Our officer corps reports that every time our troops kill or capture an insurgent, there are three more who just step forward to take his place. That is not a compelling strategy for success. So I hope that tonight we hear something new from the President. I hope the President will recognize that the American people demand more than a communications strategy--they demand real leadership, with real decisions and real choices that provide a strategy for success and that get our troops home. If the President does this, he will begin to restore the confidence of the American people and the respect of the world. In showing real leadership, he will make it clear to the Iraqi people that it is time for them to take the lead. I also hope the American people understand that there still can be a plan for success in Iraq if we move quickly, if we make the right choices, if we reach across the aisle for bipartisan effort, if we reach out to other nations. The mistakes that we have made do not change the fact that our military is the most powerful and competent in the world and that democracy is one of the world's most powerful ideas. The mistakes do not change the fact that the Iraqi people understand, through the powerful memory of generations, that they have a unique opportunity to shape their own future. If the President finally opens to these new ideas and gets this right, tells the truth about the complex challenge, and the Iraqi people get serious about doing their part and bearing the burden, we can have the success that we need and seek in Iraq. So what can the President say tonight to get things right in Iraq and put us on the road to success? The President can start by immediately declaring that the United States does not seek permanent bases or any permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicion of indefinite occupation is critical to eroding support for the insurgency. Getting that right also means using the extraordinary leverage that we have to get the Iraqis to do their part. Our massive military presence is all that stands between the Iraqi people and complete chaos. Our special forces are protecting Iraqi leaders. With this kind of leverage, it is nothing short of shocking that the administration allowed 6 months to go by from the last election before including Sunnis in the political process. This was an obvious crucial prerequisite to success. Yet there was no sense of urgency and minimal pressure applied. It is time for the administration to use its leverage to insist that the Iraqis do their part and establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding new elections in December. There can be no wavering from those dates. Getting it right also means putting together a real plan for training Iraqi troops and following through on it. This should be our top priority. It is the key to getting our troops home and avoiding a humiliating withdrawal. It is time to move beyond fudging the numbers and finally put the training of Iraqi troops on a true 6-month wartime footing. That includes ensuring that the Iraqi Government has the full budget necessary to be able to deploy and continue the training. It is also time to stop using the in-country training requirement as an excuse for refusing offers made by Egypt, Jordan, France, and Germany to do more. Why would we turn down the opportunity of other countries to help us do more? Why would we turn down the opportunity to be able to give our troops the relief they deserve? Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan--a real plan, shared with the Congress of the United States--with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to the Iraqis after the December elections. The administration's plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure and capacity, and it should be specifically tied to a series of specific tasks and responsibilities. This plan must have more than just dates and numbers. It must make it clear to the Iraqi Government that American patience is limited. The Iraqi people need to understand that in America, today, when we see Army recruitments suffering, families organizing to protect their kids from recruiters, and when we see the divorce rate for military officers skyrocketing--I am told the divorce rate among officers for the last year is up some 70-plus percent; and since the year 2000, up over 300 percent--when we see this kind of damage to the long-term capacity of the American military, we need to take it seriously. I know the Iraqi people already understand that our troops are skilled and brave. Now they need to understand we must see legitimate progress that offers a real chance of American troops beginning to come home. At the same time, if the administration wants the Iraqis to bear the burden, they need to move beyond the hollow ``stay as long as it takes no matter what'' talk that provides an endless security blanket--a disincentive for Iraqis to stand up for Iraq--and, instead, they must talk forcefully about the transfer of responsibility. If the administration gets this plan right, and the Iraqis succeed in adopting a new constitution and holding elections as planned, trained Iraqi security forces should be ready to take on more responsibility at the critical moment when support for the insurgency is diminishing. That is the kind of careful, strategic planning we need to set the stage for American forces to be able to be reduced in number, as the Iraqi security forces assume more of the mission. But, again, this simply will not happen unless the Iraqi forces themselves assume more of their part. We must make the Iraqi Government understand the patience of America is finite, and that real progress must be achieved. We all understand that deploying capable Iraqi security forces is imperative to success. It always has been imperative to success. Yet the numbers we have been given again and again have been false. But the administration would also have us believe Iraqi forces alone could end the insurgency. That is simply not true. I hope the President strikes a different tone tonight and commits to work simultaneously, equally, forcefully on all fronts--security, economic, and political. The administration should know by now that overly optimistic predictions for Iraq and rebuilding Iraq have actually been a drag on our mission. Reconstruction lags behind even in the Shiite south and in the Kurdish north, where security is far less of an issue. This sends the wrong message to those whom we ask to sacrifice for freedom. We need to speed up work in these areas in order to demonstrate that progress will be made in the rest of Iraq. If Iraqis, particularly Sunnis, who fear being left out in the cold, see electricity flowing, jobs being created, infrastructure being built, and a government of their own choosing being formed, the lure of the insurgency will diminish. The violence and risk to our troops will decrease. To get it right in Iraq, we must show all Iraqis they are fighting not only for a future of freedom but for a tangibly improved future for their lives on a day-to-day basis, and for their children. Getting it right also means understanding the neighborhood. It means getting those with an interest in Iraq, such as the Saudis, to act now. Iraq is surrounded by Sunni neighbors with significant resources, yet complaints fall from these neighbors about being left out and about their concerns falling on deaf ears. Many of these countries could do much more to help, and we should encourage them to do so. Even short- term improvements, such as providing electricity from their grids, or supplying diesel fuel--an offer that has been made but is yet unfulfilled by the Saudis--would go a long way. But we have to do our part and address their legitimate concerns. If we want these nations to step up to the plate and help us to secure Iraq's borders and help, particularly because of their Sunni background, to bring Sunnis into the political process or help to rebuild Iraq's economy and infrastructure, then we have to offer a coherent, strategic security plan for their region. We have to address their fears of an Iran-dominated crescent, and their concerns about our sporadic mediation between Israel and the Palestinians. This administration needs to show it understands there has to be some give- and-take in the process. The administration could also give a significant boost to the rebuilding effort by recognizing the great untapped potential of private sector contributions. The conference that just took place in Brussels was a donor conference. What we need is more than donors; we need investment. The administration, working with the Iraqi Government, should organize a development conference for Iraqi businessmen and their regional counterparts who wish to invest in Iraq. Regional investment would not only strengthen Iraq's economy, it would give neighboring governments a greater stake in Iraq's success and another incentive for them to be able to provide more help. And the administration might want to consider the effect on regional businessmen when they read headlines about Halliburton's extraordinary dominance of local contracts. Much of what I have discussed today--from administration mistakes, to the steps we need to move forward--all deals with laying the groundwork for long-term success. But the reality is, the elections are 6 months off. Iraq is not going to be rebuilt overnight, and it is going to take time to get the Iraqi troops ready. In the coming months, even with perfect planning, there will be violence, turmoil, and hardship. That is why tonight it is critical that President Bush make clear there are actions we can take in the short term to ease the burden on our troops. He needs to get this right, not only to save American lives, but to elevate the confidence of the American people. For this to happen, the President must reconsider some hastily brushed aside options. To date, the administration has been unwilling to entertain the idea of empowered militias, instead singularly focusing on a unified Iraqi security force. But Iraq, like Afghanistan, has numerous tribal, religious, and ethnic militias, such as the Kurdish Peshmerga or the Shiite Badr Army. The fact is, these forces are structured, and, most importantly, they are accepted by the provincial populations. They are capable of providing protection while helping with reconstruction. In the interim, while a fully capable Iraqi security force is established, these forces could meet some of the critical security needs. They could fill the gap. If they can help do the job, why not let them? It is time for the administration to put aside its concerns and prod the Iraqi Government to give the militias legitimacy. We can do this by integrating them into a kind of national guard, a force that would provide security in their own areas where they are respected and accepted. The administration also needs to get it right on border security. For 2 years now, Senators and others have been commenting on the absence of adequate border security. The jihadists have been able to move in at will. If we want to ease the burden on our troops in the short term, we need to put that kind of adequate border security force in place. The truth is, it has been absent since day one, which is a shame, because that is precisely where our allies could help. As opposed to providing security in urban areas, border security is generally much less risky for troops. The administration needs to work with the Iraqi Government to reach out to the world and establish a multinational force to secure Iraq's borders. Such a force, if sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council, could attract participation by Iraq's neighbors and powerful nations with a vested interest, such as India. The administration has narrowed our options in Iraq, but there are still better choices available to us. There is still time to get it right in Iraq, and I hope, for the sake of our troops, the President will do so tonight. We are at a critical juncture in this conflict, both at home and abroad. The last thing we need is the administration growing even more stubborn or more defensive. Today, our Nation needs honest, open leadership, and a comprehensive strategy for success. It is time for the President to reach out and work across the aisle and across the globe to clean up this mess. The President must seize this opportunity to move forward, as the next months are so critical to the future of Iraq and to the future of our security. If the administration fails to take the steps that are available to them, and fails to hold the Iraqis accountable, we will stumble along, our troops at greater risk, casualties rising, the patience of the American people wearing thin, and the specter of quagmire staring us in the face. Every misstep, every measure untaken, every wise course not followed carries an unbearable cost. The American people have a right to expect accountability. We need to decrease the risk to our troops and strengthen our chances for success. Our troops deserve better than they are getting. They deserve leadership that is equal to their sacrifice.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today Senator Snowe and I have introduced a bill to help a group of nearly 300 fishermen, known as aquaculturists, who are falling through the cracks of the Government's disaster assistance programs. Right now these businesses are prohibited from receiving SBA disaster loans, and they are eligible for USDA disaster loans only under limited circumstances. To our dismay, we have learned that SBA has come across this dilemma many times in the past, most recently last year in Connecticut, and yet no one at that agency has ever tried to coordinate with the Department of Agriculture. To make matters worse, the SBA waited two weeks to let us know that they wouldn't be able to serve all our small businesses. So even in those cases in which these harmed small businesses would be eligible for loans from the USDA, hundreds of small businesses are left waiting for the Secretary of Agriculture to go through the same hoops to certify a disaster and make that agency's disaster loans available. I appreciate all the Farm Service Agency has done to expedite the process, and compliment their staff for being so responsive. However, this isn't right. Our State has been hit by the worst case of red tide in more than 30 years. These small business owners have seen their income disappear because they can't sell their inventory. With no income they can't pay their bills, invest in seeds to plant future crops, and they can't afford to maintain their current crops. They need access to these low- cost loans to help them makes ends meet until the Government opens the shores and declares shellfish once again safe to eat. Businesses in trouble can't, and shouldn't have to, wait for this redtape to be resolved. To make sure this doesn't happen in the future, I am joining Senator Snowe to make it possible for aquaculturists to be eligible for SBA economic injury disaster loans. This will complement what the Department of Agriculture's Farm Services Agency can offer in disaster loans. I want to also assure my colleagues that businesses are only eligible for loans through the SBA or Farm Service Agency but not both. This is already prohibited by law, and the agencies have in place procedures to protect against misuse. I than Senator Snowe for working with me to help our fishermen hurting from red tide. I ask unanimous consent that an article on this problem be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I support what Senator Durbin is trying to achieve with this amendment regarding CAFE standards. Over the past few years, I have looked closely at this issue and believe strongly that we need a consensus path forward. I do not believe, however, that Senator Durbin's amendment or Senator Bond's amendment will achieve that goal. I have followed closely the information available from the National Academy of Sciences and have spoken with labor groups, automobile manufacturers, and environmental groups. We can, and must, significantly increase the efficiency of our automobile fleet, but we cannot do it without creating new incentives for automobile manufacturers to retool plants to produce advanced technology, more efficient vehicles, and lead the way toward an energy- independent America.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last night in New York City, Karl Rove made some comments to the Conservative Party of New York that need to be discussed on this floor and for which an apology is needed. None of us here will ever forget the hours after September 11, the frantic calls to our families after we evacuated the Capitol, the evacuations themselves, the images on television, and then the remarkable response of the American people as we came together as one to answer the attack on our homeland. I remember being in a leadership meeting just off the Chamber here at the moment that the plane hit the Pentagon and we saw the plume of smoke. Then the word came from the White House that they were evacuating and that we should evacuate. I will never forget the anger I felt as we walked out of here, numbers of people running across the street, and I turned to somebody else walking with us and I said, ``We're at war.'' That was the reaction of the American people. That was the reaction of everybody in the Senate and Congress. We drew strength when our firefighters ran upstairs in New York City and risked their lives so that other people could live. When rescuers rushed into smoke and fire at the Pentagon, we took heart at their courage. When the men and women of flight 93 sacrificed themselves to save our Nation's Capitol, when flags were hanging from front porches all across America and strangers became friends, it brought out the best of all of us in America. That spirit of our country should never be reduced to a cheap, divisive political applause line from anyone who speaks for the President of the United States. I am proud, as my colleagues on this side are, that after September 11, all of the people of this country rallied to President Bush's call for unity to meet the danger. There were no Democrats, there were no Republicans, there were only Americans. That is why it is really hard to believe that last night in New York, a senior adviser, the most senior adviser to the President of the United States, is twisting, purposely twisting those days of unity in order to divide us for political gain. Rather than focusing attention on Osama bin Laden and finding him or rather than focusing attention on just smashing al-Qaida and uniting our effort, as we have been, he is, instead, challenging the patriotism of every American who is every bit as committed to fighting terror as is he. For Karl Rove to equate Democratic policy on terror to indictments or to therapy or to suggest that the Democratic response on 9/11 was weak is disgraceful. Just days after 9/11, the Senate voted 98 to nothing, and the House voted 420 to 1, to authorize President Bush to use all necessary and appropriate force against terror. And after the bipartisan vote, President Bush said: I'm gratified that the Congress has united so powerfully by taking this action. It sends a clear message. Our people are together and we will prevail. That is not the message that was sent by Karl Rove in New York City last night. Last night, he said: ``No more needs to be said about their motives.'' The motives of liberals. I think a lot more needs to be said about Karl Rove's motives because they are not the people's motives. They are not the motives that were expressed in that spirit that brought us together. They are not the motives of a Nation that found unity in that critical moment--Democrat and Republican alike, all of us as Americans. If the President really believes his own words, if those words have meaning, he should at the very least expect a public apology from Karl Rove. And frankly, he ought to fire him. If the President of the United States knows the meaning of those words, then he ought to listen to the plea of Kristen Brightweiser, who lost her husband when the Twin Towers came crashing down. She said: If you are going to use 9/11, use it to make this Nation safer than it was on 9/11. Karl Rove doesn't owe me an apology and he doesn't owe Democrats an apology. He owes the country an apology. He owes Kristen Brightweiser and a lot of people like her, those families, an apology. He owes an apology to every one of those families who paid the ultimate price on 9/11 and expect their Government to be doing all possible to keep the unity of their country and to fight an effective war on terror. The fact is, millions of Americans across our country have serious questions about that, and they have a right to have a legitimate debate in our Nation without being called names or somehow being divided in a way that does a disservice to the effort to be safer and to bring our people together. The fact is that mothers and fathers of service people spend sleepless nights now, worrying about sons and daughters in humvees in Iraq that still are not adequately armored. They are asking Washington for honesty, for results, and for leadership--not for political division. Before Karl Rove delivers another political assault, he ought to stop and think about those families and the unity of 9/11. The 9/11 Commission has given us a path to follow to try to make our Nation safer. He ought to be working overtime to implement the provisions. We should not be letting 95 percent of our container ships come into our country uninspected. We should not be leaving nuclear and chemical plants without enough protection. Until the work is done of truly responding in the way that Kristen Brightweiser said we should, making America safer, using 9/11 for that purpose only, we should not see people trying to question the patriotism of Americans who are working in good faith to accomplish those goals. Before wrapping themselves in the memory of 9/11 and shutting their eyes and ears to the truth, they ought to remember what America is really about; that leadership is not insult or intimidation, it is the strength of making America safe. And they ought to remember what their responsibility is to every single American, and they ought to just focus on the work of doing that. That is what Americans expect of us, and that is what is going to make this country safer in the long run. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I am happy to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. I understand I am part of the unanimous consent request to be recognized after the vote.

Mr. KERRY. I want to accommodate and help my friend and colleague. What I would like to find out is, if I could be part of a unanimous consent request to simply be recognized after the business the Senator needs to do, I am happy to accommodate him.

Mr. KERRY. I understand. The Senator needs to have a vote now, and I will happily accommodate that.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to the Senator, first of all, every one of us is proud of him and proud of his family and proud of the service of his son. I remember talking to the Senator from South Dakota about how he felt while his son was in harm's way. If ever there were a sort of clear statement about the insult of Karl Rove's comments, it is the question asked by the Senator. I don't know if Karl Rove understands that. His comments certainly do not indicate it. But I will tell you this: It raises the question of whether he is, as many have suggested, prepared to say anything for political purposes. I think he owes your son. I think he owes every Democrat. I have been to Iraq. I met countless soldiers who came up to me and said, ``I voted for you'' or people who said ``I support you'' or people who said they are just Democrats. This comment by Karl Rove insults every single one of them who responded to the call of our country, as did every Senator on this side of the aisle in voting to go into Afghanistan and in supporting the troops across the board. If we are going to get things done and find the common ground here, this is not the way for the most senior adviser to the President to be talking about our country. I remember the storm created in the last week over the comments of a Senator. Here is a senior adviser to the President of the United States who has insulted every Democrat in this country, every patriot in this country who is trying to do their best to protect our troops and provide good policy to our Nation. To suggest there was a weak response, when we voted 98 to 0, is an insult to that vote and to the unity of the moment and to the words of his own President, and I think he owes an apology to your son and to all of those soldiers. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. I want to be recognized to be able to speak immediately after the business the Senator has to conduct. If I can be so recognized, I would appreciate it very much.

Mr. KERRY

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