Yeterday, Karen wrote about the fiscal responsibility and the importance of paying our way and not leaving the burden of our excesses to our children. Yesterday, the Senate passed legislation that seeks to impart some fairness to our tax code, and included provisions written by Sen. Kerry to shift the weight away from working Americans, and force the wealthy and corporations to pay their fair share. Economist Brad Delong has some very interesting charts that point out how much better the Democrats have been at managing our nation's finances than Republicans despite their claims to the contrary. Although Republicans are fond of the term 'tax and spend' when referring to Democrats, the reality is that the current administration and Bush's Republican friends in Congress have become the party of 'borrow and spend', and their economic policies favoring corporate interests and the wealthy have driven us into a ditch. The founders would not have been pleased.

"Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1785.

Under a Democratic administration, and with a larger majority of Democrats in Congress, we can reverse the inequities of the Bush administration. Senator Obama's tax plan will put more money in the pockets of average Americans and boost the economy by strengthening its foundation, while McCain's sends us further into debt.

Sen. Kerry spoke at Faneuil Hall last October on the topic of revising the tax code to impart some fairness, and two of his provisions were included in yesterday's passage of the tax relief bill.

Here's yesterday's press release on what happened.

Kerry Provisions Close Tax Loopholes for Hedge Funds, Freeze Giveaways for Big Oil

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. John Kerry today announced the Senate’s passage of the Tax Extenders and Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 and the Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 which included two Kerry provisions to stop tax giveaways for hedge funds and big oil companies.

The first provision was introduced in response to news accounts of U.S. hedge fund managers deferring billions of dollars of compensation offshore. Earlier this Congress, Senator Kerry and Rep. Emanuel introduced legislation to prevent U.S. taxpayers from deferring compensation in offshore tax havens. The closing of this loophole would raise $25 billion over 10 years. The top fifty hedge fund managers earned a total of $29 billion last year.

“Low-income and middle class families – not hedge fund managers – are the ones who need tax incentives to save for retirement,” said Sen. Kerry. “At a time when our personal savings rate is near zero and CEOs are being paid 364 times as much as the average worker, Hedge fund managers can’t be allowed to avoid paying their share of taxes, leaving hard working Americans to foot the bill. It’s time to bring fairness and transparency back to our tax codes.”

Most Americans can defer income through a qualified retirement (e.g. 401k) and individual retirement account (IRA). In 2008, an individual can defer up to $15,500 in income into a 401(k) or similar accounts, and an additional $5,000 in an IRA. By contrast, U.S. based hedge-fund managers who operate offshore investment funds can defer unlimited amounts of their compensation. While the deferrals technically comply with current law, there are clear inequities in the amounts that middle-class American can defer through mainstream tax incentives for retirement and what high-income Americans can defer through offshore corporations. The Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act of 2008 would require offshore deferred compensation to be included in income on a current basis.

The second provision freezes the domestic manufacturing deduction for oil and gas income at 6 percent, raising $5 billion over ten years. Currently, the 6 percent rate is scheduled to increase to 9 percent in 2010. The second quarter of 2008 saw over $44 billion in profits for oil companies and executives. In the nearly eight years of the Bush Administration, the “Big Five” international oil companies have seen $647.5 billion in profits. Senator Kerry introduced legislation in both the 109th and 110th Congress to scale back the manufacturing deduction for oil and gas companies.

“With oil executives raking in mindboggling profits as American families struggle to make ends meet, the last thing Big Oil needs is a tax deduction,” Kerry added. “This legislation is an essential step in the development of our clean energy industry and our fight against global climate change.”

Maybe now that our economy is falling apart, the Republicans in Congress have decided to listen to reason, and concede that a strong economy is reliant more on Main Street than on Wall Street. Or perhaps they just figure it's too close to election time to fight it. Either way, I guess we file this one under the category "better late than never".

[Editor's Note: Please welcome our guest blogger karennj today. We had a discussion via chat and she reminded us of this.]

In a time when the consequences of fiscal irresponsibility dominate the news, this video from JKmediasouce.org of a Senate Speech that John Kerry gave on November 17, 2004 when raising the debt ceiling was being debated hints at how different the present would be had the results 2 weeks before been different. The speech speaks of the responsibility of Congress to be fiscally responsible.

He speaks of the result of a borrow and spend policy that President Bush had in his first term. He says that because of it we were in a hole that we had to work our way out of. He spoke of how the Congress was “putting the tab on the credit card and sending the bill to our kids.” He said that this was not sustainable and was depriving us of being able to make choices that we should make for our country. He makes the case that debt has consequences were beyond the obvious economic ones They make us a weaker country.

The speech has a sense of old fashion responsibility that reminds me of what I was taught by my parents . It also reflects the values that Senator Kerry spoke of even as he ran for President. It is interesting to find that in 2004, he added a plank to the Democratic platform to deal with credit card and mortgage abuses.

The contrast this year to John McCain, who still calls for more tax cuts in addition to retaining the Bush tax cuts that are less affordable now than they were then, couldn’t be more extreme. On this as on other things, he would be a disastrous third term of George Bush.

The values that Senator Kerry speaks of are values that are reflected throughout his political career. He speaks of having been one of the Senators who worked for fiscal responsibility in the 1990s. It may be ironic that the two votes the Republicans used to claim Senator Kerry flipped flopped, in fact, demonstrated his consistency on financial issues. The votes were votes of principle, he thought then, as he said then that it was wrong to increase the debt to pay for the costs of the war rather than to roll back tax cuts to the wealthy. This brilliant speech outlines the need to act responsibly and is even more compelling now than it was when it was given.

And provides some excellent reasons for giving it to him.

It's impossible to cover a 23 year Senate career in five minutes, but the video provides more than enough reason to give Senator Kerry your vote. The Kerry-Feingold Amendment, which had little support when it was first presented, is now the Democratic position on Iraq withdrawal. Senator Kerry has been one of the Senate's strongest voices for veterans, small business owners and the environment, and against the destructive policies of the Bush administration.

What the Senator doesn't mention in the video is his long history of investigating government corruption, including his leadership on Iran-Contra and BCCI, which many who have studied the issues and followed the connections view as the most compelling reason for making sure he stays in Washington. The very reason corrupt Washington insiders have fought for decades to silence Senator Kerry's voice and influence is the precise reason he must stay there. We need someone in Washington who isn't afraid to speak truth to power, and Senator Kerry is the person who has been doing that since long before he was elected to the Senate, despite the risks and knowing the power of the opposition.

In his 1997 book, The New War, Senator Kerry wrote of the link between international crime and global terrorism and of how we need to approach the threats to our security and our freedom, using law enforcement and alliances with other nations. On the surface, looking back at the failed approach of the past eight years of George Bush, the book seems prescient, and I guess it is. But the fact is that it's based on years of investigating crime and an approach that isn't a matter of intuition, but of study and logic. It's the result of connecting the dots and coming to the right conclusion about how to fight a global war on terrorism.

The strongest case for John Kerry in 2004 is the same for his re-election today.

“There has never been a guy who has run for president who has, hands-on, known the kinds of substantive things he knows about the world of international crime, about banking and international bank regulation and finance, about the interconnectedness of the world finance system and how various intelligence agencies play into it. He is uniquely qualified.”

Kerry’s experience fighting the Washington establishment over BCCI also gave him a profound education in the workings of the insider Washington power and corruption that support corporate and organized crime and weaken the country’s ability to counter terrorism. He showed that he has what it takes to stand up to the big-money special interests that don’t want the system to change.

National security is a serious issue in this election, and we need to look at the threats to our nation both from the outside and the inside. This is not a time when we can afford to lose our strongest voice against government corruption and its global implications. This is not a time when we can afford to forget who has been right about how we need to fight terrorism all along.

That's why we need John Kerry.

Few pieces of legislation are as important to parents as those designed to protect our children, and this week saw a major victory for anyone concerned with children's health and consumer safety. Congress recently passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 by a vote of 424-1 in the House and 89-3 in the Senate. If you're wondering who the four who voted against the bill are, they're Coburn (R-OK), DeMint (R-SC), Kyl (R-AZ) and Ron Paul in the House. I'm not sure why these four Republicans want your babies chewing on toxic chemicals, and I'm not sure I want to. Suffice it to say, most legislators on both sides of the aisle have a bit more common sense. And even though President Bush has said he disagrees with the ban, he signed it into law this week. Looks like he's doing some eleventh hour legacy work, which is fine by me. It's signed, for whatever reason.

As noted by PRNewswire via MarketWatch:

President Bush signed a federal bill today that bans six toxic phthalates from children's products. His signature bolsters Congress' overwhelming support for this legislation, and sends a clear message that toxic chemicals have no place in toys.
The phthalate ban, a provision of the Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act, will protect children from these harmful plastic-softening chemicals which are linked to breast cancer, decreased sperm counts, birth defects and other health problems. Advocates see this legislation as a first step toward broader chemical policy reform. "Congress got a glimpse into how chemicals are regulated in this country and saw how broken the system is," said Janet Nudelman, director of program and policy for the Breast Cancer Fund. "The phthalate ban is only the tip of the iceberg of what's needed to protect Americans from unsafe chemical exposures."

Senator Kerry grilled FDA Associate Commissioner Norris Alderson in May on the issue of chemicals in household products and in particular the lack of independent testing on products we use every day.

Please don't ever make me testify before him when he's angry.

The Senator was much nicer to us when he and Teresa spoke on the topic in Pittsburgh last year. Of course, the people at the book signing weren't shirking our responsibility to the American people. I think that had a lot to do with it.

Both the Senator and Teresa have long been environmental champions, and have spoken on the issue of toxins in consumer products. I didn't know what a phthalate was until I heard it from Teresa at a conference a couple years ago and learned more from reading chapter two of This Moment on Earth, titled "A Body of Evidence". Written by Teresa, it deals extensively with toxins, and the Senator notes that it's his favorite chapter in the book (I'm partial to chapter six on drilling). Teresa has extensive knowledge of the subject from her association with experts like Dr. Devra Davis, Director of the Center for Environmental Oncology at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, Dr. Julia Brody, executive director of Silent Spring Institute and through her sponsorship of an annual Women's Health and the Environment conference that brings together experts to inform the public of environmental health issues.

The phthalate ban is a good first step toward protecting consumers from household and environmental toxins. It's a far cry from where we need to be, but it's progress, and that's a good thing.

Democrats in the Senate have also introduced the "BPA-Free Kids Act", which has been referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Senator Kerry is an original co-sponsor of the Schumer legislation.

Kerry, Senate Democrats Introduce Bill Banning BPA in All Children's Products

Senator John Kerry (D-MA) joined U.S. Senators Charles E. Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), along with Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), to announce that they have introduced legislation banning a potentially hazardous chemical, known as bisphenol-A (BPA), in all children’s products. The legislation will also mandate that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conduct a comprehensive study of the health effects of BPA in children and adults. Earlier this month a U.S. government study revealed that bisphenol-A, a chemical used to make plastics clear and shatter-resistant, could pose major health risks. Canada has identified the chemical, which is present in water bottles and infant formula bottles, as one that could affect reproduction and neural development during early life exposure. Major U.S. retailers such as Wal-Mart and Toys'R'Us are already pulling baby bottles containing bisphenol-A from their shelves, and the popular bottle-maker Nalgene said it will discontinue production of its line of bottles that rely on the substance and recall BPA-affected products already in stores.

“As the evidence mounts about BPA’s health risks, the first thing we should do is take this chemical out of children’s products,” Senator Kerry said. “Parents should be able to give their kids a drink without wondering whether the baby bottle or sippee cup will make their child sick.”

If I were asked to guess if Massachusetts was having a Senate election and was only allowed to judge by television coverage, I would have to say the only race that was going on at the moment was the presidential one. Maybe I was checking the wrong stations at the wrong times, but I had yet to see a political ad by Senator Kerry - until now, that is.

Yesterday, the Kerry campaign unveiled a wonderful ad that will run in Massachusetts for several weeks. It's about time, I say. It is easy for those of us who follow John Kerry's work in the Senate closely, to forget that not everyone has the same degree of political involvement as we do. It can hardly be expected that every Massachusetts resident of voting age knows the Senator's entire legislative history, and how it has impacted our state and us, but this lack of detailed knowledge inevitably leads to the question:

'What have you done for us lately, John?'**

This first ad in a series focuses on just one of Senator Kerry's many causes - the fight for our veterans. Watch as Specialist Sean Bannon describes his return from Iraq, and how our Senator went to bat for him in more ways than one:

Here I must confess that I also didn't know the extent of Senator Kerry's work on behalf of vets, active duty, and their family members. Before my husband finally retired after 20 years of service in the Air Force, he also had the $250,000 Service Life Insurance that would be payable to his spouse in the event of his death. What I did not realize was that this policy was only available (at affordable rates) to active duty personnel, and only thanks to Senator Kerry was it made available to reservists called to active duty and National Guard members.

While Specialist Bannon's testimony is only one personal example, Senator Kerry's continued leadership in Veterans Issues is exemplary.

Last year, as part of the Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Appropriations Conference Report, the nation's VA Vet Centers received $20 Million in funding - money that Senator Kerry had included as part of the war funding supplemental. Seven Massachusetts Vet Centers benefitted, as well.

Just recently, the new Housing Bill was signed into law, and it contained four key provisions introduced by Senator Kerry. Aside from helping thousands of Massachusetts homeowners (not a bad feat in and of itself), one of the provisions is directly aimed at easing the housing crisis for military folks.

* The bill also contains provisions to amend the Service Members Civil Relief Act (SCRA) by extending the period a lender must wait before starting disclosure procedures from 90 days to nine months after a service member has returned from active duty and capping interest on mortgages at 6 percent for one year after a serviceperson completes his/her services.

A visit and search through the legislation at the official Senate website would yield many more bills sponsored and co-sponsored by John Kerry that are a part of his fight for the Vets and active duty troops and their families. But this brings us right back to the beginning of the post: A lot of people don't have the time, nor the (sometimes admittedly obsessive) inclination to follow every piece of legislation ever introduced by the good Senator.

So yes, bring us more ads to highlight at least some of the great work JK has done for Mass. and the country. I would be willing to bet that a lot of people will watch the ad, and have the above question** answered.

The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on African Affairs held a hearing on Tuesday at which witnesses from the State Department, USAID, Freedom House and the Council on Foreign Relations delivered testimony on the crisis in Zimbabwe. Senator Kerry spoke about the recent sham elections there, in which Robert Mugabe used violence and intimidation to retain power and force his opponent, Morgan Tsvangirai, to withdraw from the election to save the lives of his supporters. Senator Kerry shared his reaction as members of the African Union and other world leaders appear to have turned a blind eye to 'Zimbabwe's agony' and the theft of the Zimbabwean election by Mugabe's ruthless regime.

“There’s really some sense that the world has lost its capacity for appropriate outrage.”

Senator Kerry described the circumstances surrounding the election, as villagers were handed bullets and told to choose between their lives and 'democracy'.

“MDC (the opposition party) believes 113 of its supporters were killed, about 10,000 injured, more than 2,000 unlawfull detained and over 200,000 fled their homes, and frankly the details are much more horrifying than those statistics convey, because as we know, women were burned to death, young men were tortured and dismembered, the elderly were savagely beaten, and Mugabe had the audacity to say to the world ‘what do I care about an election? An X on a ballot means nothing against the power of a gun.'

And against all of this, where are we?”

The UN failed last week to impose U.S. proposed sanctions including an arms embargo,travel ban and assets freeze against Mugabe, with Russia and China refusing to support the US position. Despite the 113 politically motivated murders attributed to Mugabe and his thugs leading up to the election, they claimed the sanctions were a 'violation of the UN charter'.

Seems to me you can't get through the preamble of the UN Charter without running into something that would apply. How about "fundamental human rights"? You'd think not being murdered would be one of those.

Voice of America covered the story.

The full hearing "The Crisis in Zimbabwe and Prospects for Resolution" is available at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee website.

Senator Kerry spoke on the floor of the Senate yesterday in support of S.2731, the Tom Lantos and Henry J. Hyde United States Global Leadership Against HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria Reauthorization Act of 2008. The bill passed 80-16.

Among other things, the legislation appropriates funds to support the global fight against AIDS and other diseases through the year 2013, reauthorizing the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Also passed with the bill was Sen. Kerry's legislation to lift the 20 year old HIV/AIDS travel ban. The ban on travel was introduced by the late Sen. Jesse Helms in 1987, when fear and ignorance prompted the Congress to add it to the list of contagious diseases.

Senator Kerry released a statement on lifting the ban:

"Today we are one step closer to ending a discriminatory practice that stigmatizes all those living with HIV, squanders our moral authority, and sets us back in the fight against AIDS. By passing PEPFAR today the Senate not only has made a powerful statement about our commitment to eradicating HIV/AIDS but we have also voted to overturn the HIV travel and immigration ban that has no foundation in public health or common sense. There was no reason for this policy to still be on the books, and I am proud to have been part of eliminating this draconian ban. I sincerely hope we can get this to the President as quickly as possible to finally end this misguided policy."

As Senator Biden proclaimed after the vote, there isn't much to praise about President Bush's foreign policy. Except this. And both Senator Kerry and Senator Biden were quick to give due credit with the passage of the bill.

Yesterday's Senate session and the vote on S.2731, Global HIV/AIDS programs, can be found at the C-SPAN archives.

Students with Physicians for Human Rights held a Global AIDS Superhero Rally outside Sen. Kerry's Boston office to thank him for his work on repealing the HIV travel ban and his support of PEPFAR. Don't miss their Flickr link to some great photos of the rally.

Has this ever happened to you? You leave the doctor's office with a prescription and wonder how the pharmacist is going to read the scrawl on that little piece of paper. Then you figure they'll know and hand it over and hope for the best.

Most of the time they get it right. Or they call the doctor for clarification. But every once in a while, they don't.

According to a July 2006 report from the National Academies of Science's Institute of Medicine (IOM), illegibly written prescriptions kill more than 7,000 people annually in the United States. And from the text of The Medicare Electronic Medication and Safety Protection (E-MEDS) Act of 2007 (S.2408), The Institute of Medicine estimates more than 1.5 million preventable adverse drug events occur every year.

On Wednesday, the Senate passed Sen. Kerry's e-prescribing provision with the Medicare bill by a vote of 69-30. The provision will require physicians to adopt electronic prescribing technology.

Not only will e-prescriptions save lives by removing the risks from illegible handwriting, but doctors will also be warned of potentially dangerous drug interactions, saving thousands of lives and billions of dollars a year.

“e-Prescribing is a fundamental step towards modernizing our health care system,” said Sen. Kerry. “It will save lives by reducing medical errors and save billions of dollars.”

The PCMA put together this video with highlights from last December's press conference. It features a bipartisan group of Senators describing Sen. Kerry's legislation and explaining why they backed it overwhelmingly.

Know what? John McCain isn't funny. Seriously. He's the guy who thinks he's funny, but isn't. The one who tells the uncomfortable joke at the party about someone's child, then laughs as the room turns silent.

His latest shtick is about Iran, and how hysterical it would be to kill people there. And not just the 'axis of evil' kind, but regular old go-to-work, feed-the-family, just-trying-to-get-by people.

Yeah, he's a real laugh riot. He also didn't answer the question, which is pretty typical for McCain. And damn if he didn't do it in Pittsburgh. And at Primanti's, too, one of my favorite places. I hope he got indigestion. (He did choke on a couple things this week, including getting caught telling a big 'ol fib about the Steelers, calling social security a disgrace, getting stumped on a health care question, lying about a vote, and having his chief economic advisor refer to Americans a bunch of whiners whose economic woes are a figment of our imagination.)

I don't know why people like Bush and McCain think it's OK to tell jokes about killing people or about destroying the planet like Bush did at the G8 the other day. These are not just some idiots in a bar (technically, I think Primanti's is a restaurant/bar), these are idiots who are the President and the wanna-be President, telling tasteless jokes to people we should be talking to about things like nuclear nonproliferation, the economy and climate change. Not about how we suck on the environment and want to kill folks.

You know, every time McCain or Bush comes out with one of these embarrassingly unfunny 'jokes' at the expense of the American people, it reminds me of a line from one of my favorite movies, The American President.

"We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them."

There are, thank goodness, people who know when to be funny and when to be serious. And they know that the threat from Iran and what we need to do to control it is no laughing matter.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on Wednesday on "Meeting the Iranian Challenge". In this clip, Sen. Kerry questions Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs William Burns on the need for diplomacy and sanctions.

Today, Zimbabwe will hold an election with a single candidate. Robert Mugabe, who was defeated by Morgan Tsvangirai in the country's March election, will attempt to hold on to power through violence and intimidation and a sham 'run off' election while the world watches.

Mugabe, in his nearly 30 year rule, has seen the devolution of his once prosperous nation into a country replete with poverty and violence, where the life expectancy is the lowest of any nation on earth. The mismanagement of the country's economy has lead to hyperinflation and severe food shortages. Although the literacy rate of adults in Zimbabwe is over 90%, unemployment is around 80%. It's estimated that 4 million Zimbabweans are displaced, either internally or in neighboring countries due to the economic crisis and the violent and repressive Mugabe government.

Senator Kerry took to the floor of the Senate yesterday to urge the US and the international community to uphold the democratic process and the will of the people of Zimbabwe, and condemn the theft of the March election.

In April, Sen. Kerry introduced a resolution to ask the Senate to 'urge President Robert Mugabe to accept the results of Zimbabwe's elections and effect a peaceful democratic transition.' But the resolution has not stopped Mugabe, and although it has helped bring attention to the threat to democracy in Zimbabwe, the world hasn't done enough to force Mugabe to transition the country's leadership to MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai, the legitimate winner of the election. Tsvangari has removed himself from tomorrow's election to protect the lives of his supporters, who have been savagely attacked by the Mugabe regime.

If America is truly intent on promoting democracy, we must support the attempt by Zimbabweans to hold free and fair elections. If we're to regain our moral authority we must stand with them and urge the international community to uphold the will of the people.

OK, there are a couple of them. First, the cost of home heating oil is projected to increase 36% this coming winter. That's 36% more than what folks couldn't afford to pay last year when they saw a 30% increase over the previous winter. So, people who can't pay to heat their homes and businesses won't be able to, and many small businesses who supply fuel to consumers will go into debt or go under. And the scary thing is that unless someone does something, that's what's going to happen in the northeast this winter.

"Winter is months away — and we New Englanders know the cold times it will bring with it — but we need to act now to make sure that this winter no one has to choose between food or fuel."

Another scary thing is what Senator Kerry's Democratic Senate challenger thinks about the committee that's taking on this issue.

“It’s not an important committee – it’s small business.”

The Senate Small Business Committee, whose mission it is to promote and protect small businesses in the United States -- businesses that employ most Americans -- isn't important to Mr. O'Reilly, which is why Sen. Kerry is a United States Senator, and Mr. O'Reilly is a drunk driving attorney, currently on sabbatical for the purpose of annoying the voters of Massachusetts. See the difference?

Yesterday, the Small Business Committee took on the issue of home heating oil and the future impacts on consumers and small businesses. The hearing covered the near term issues of this coming winter, and touched as well on the long term solutions of conservation and alternative fuels.

Today at a hearing on high heating oil prices, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), announced legislation with Senator Olympia J. Snowe (R-Maine) to help small businesses suffering from rising heating fuel costs. Heating oil distributors are facing a credit crunch as they are forced to take out loans to cover higher costs for heating oil while their customers struggle to pay rising bills. Kerry and Snowe’s bill will give businesses impacted by high heating oil costs access to credit through disaster loan programs at the Small Business Administration.

“It might be summer outside, but as families sit down to sign heating contracts for the winter, consumers and small businesses are feeling the chill of skyrocketing heating oil prices,” said Senator Kerry, Chairman of the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship. “We need to act now to make sure that small businesses impacted by these rising energy prices have access to capital so that they can weather this storm, and so the six million families in the Northeast that rely on heating oil to stay warm in the winter will be safeguarded from supply disruptions.”

You really should watch the entire hearing. I know I say that most of the time, but this one is not only scary, but heartbreaking at times, with small business owners telling stories like that of an of 80 year old customer who can't qualify for heating assistance because she makes too much money at her part time job at the local grocery store.

In about six months, there won't be too many things that are more important.

And I am not just talking about Senator Kerry being on fire on the senate floor yesterday, as he laid out in no uncertain terms the risks we will be facing if we do not act to combat global warming starting NOW.

Subject of the Senate Floor Debate was the Climate Security Act, co-sponsored by Liebermann and Warner. The bill is widely seen as landmark legislation and possibly the most effective Climate Change bill ever considered by the congress. Of course the republican side of the aisle sees it as its duty to object to the legislation because.....well, because that's what they do.

I haven't watched their arguments for a variety of reasons, one of which is my fear of my IQ eroding in double digits if forced to make sense out of their convoluted logic. I'm assuming it all boils down to the same old canard: Too expensive for the consumer, which, translated, means: Our friends in the energy business don't want to be inconvenienced.

That's why I figured if we feature Senator Kerry's speech, we can safely consider ourselves duly and honestly educated:

Senator Reid, intelligent enough to head the opposition's lies off at the pass, put out a complementary statement that exposes their myths and lays bare the facts of this bill.

If Republicans were looking for a Presidential candidate just like George Bush but slightly less interesting, they really hit this one out of the park. They had choices. Mostly bad ones, if you think back to the primary candidates, but none so glaringly similar to George Bush than the one they chose. Strange, given the unpopularity of the current President that they'd go with more of the same. I'm just not sure how they plan to try to win an election with someone just like the guy with a 28% approval rating.

McCain has had two shots at pronouncing Ahmadinejad in the past couple days, and they still haven't taught him how to say it properly. There should be a rule that if your goal is to blow someone up, you first have to get his name right. I mean, I agree that the guy is vile, but if you can't tell people who it is that you're fighting against, how much confidence can you instill that you're actually capable of winning? Maybe that's why McCain doesn't want to talk to Iran. Someone should tell him Ali Khamenei is really in charge, and that's not too tough to pronounce with a little practice.

From the incredibly dull speeches to the mangling of the language, to the obstinate and unproductive foreign policy, to the crooked cronies, he really is Bush III. Sorry, Republicans, but you picked him.

Heads up. JK was on the floor yesterday urging the Senate to get a move on and start debating amendments to Warner-Lieberman. Looks like we might see some amendments debated today on the climate change legislation.

Happy Primary Day to our friends in South Dakota and Montana. It's your chance to help put Obama over the top, and focus on defeating McCain, so don't forget to vote!

The 'who' is Thomas Jefferson, although this is not about Thomas the person, but about the research tool that bears the name of our third President.

Most of us get the majority of our news from television, internet news sites, newspapers or a combination. I depend on all three to get the latest headlines and commentary. The problem, though, is that unless you can cut through the spin, your facts are colored by others' opinion, and there's a whole lot left out.

If, for example, you want information on what members of Congress are doing to support veterans and you're looking for it on the TV, you're not likely to get a very good picture of who is doing what. You could use 'the Google', but there's a whole lot to wade through.

That's where Thomas comes in.

THOMAS was launched in January of 1995, at the inception of the 104th Congress. The leadership of the 104th Congress directed the Library of Congress to make federal legislative information freely available to the public.

So, for regular folks who just want to know who supports what in Congress, it's pretty easy to just search on a member's name and a key word and get what you're looking for. For example, I can search on 'McCain' and 'veterans', and find legislation containing both the Senator's name and the word 'veterans' and look at the details of the 8 pieces of legislation that my search returns. Or I can enter 'Kerry' and 'veterans' and search through the 46 entries, or 'Obama' and 'veterans' and peruse 49.

Fascinating, isn't it?

Of course, the numbers don't tell the whole story. You actually need to read the legislation, or at least the summary, to see what it is and who co-sponsored. Still, it's an interesting exercise that you can use with whatever topic you're interested in. 'Jobs', for example, returns McCain, 2, Obama, 27 and Kerry a whopping 34. Again, not scientific, but telling nonetheless.

You can also search a member's name and look at all the legislation an individual has sponsored. You should probably set aside a lot more time to look through Obama's 123 or Kerry's 174 than McCain's 38, but since you won't see most of this stuff on TV, it's worth a look just to see what your Congressfolk are sponsoring.

The Library of Congress is an incredible source of information. There are others, like Project Vote Smart, that report candidates positions on issues, and are tremendous resources as well. For example, on the Project Vote Smart site, you can compare Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama's interest group ratings on a variety of topics. Like veterans' issues.

Senator McCain supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 20 percent in 2006.

In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator McCain a grade of D.

Senator Obama supported the interests of the Disabled American Veterans 80 percent in 2006.

In 2006 Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America gave Senator Obama a grade of B+.

You would think CNN would have told us that with all the talk of who has a strong record of supporting the troops. But they don't, and I'm not sure why, exactly, since you'd think people would be interested in knowing this stuff.

It does take a bit of work to find out who really votes in the interest of the majority of Americans, but it's worth the effort. Still, after a few hours of reading legislation, it's good to be able to get a summary from another trusted source.

Photo Credit: Alan D. Wilson/Creative Commons license

We've written here several times about the Senator's defense of the polar bear, and on the occasion of their addition to the endangered species list as 'threatened', it's time to revisit the topic.There's still work to be done, but yesterday was a huge step in the right direction, and the Senator marked the victory with a statement, and a warning:

“Today’s announcement is both a victory and a lifeline for our last remaining polar bears. The next step is to secure the long-term survival of the species by ensuring that the polar bear habitat in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas is protected from the threat of oil and gas drilling. Even while the Interior Department was taking steps to give these bears ESA protection, the Bush Administration opened almost 30 million acres of polar bear habitat to oil and gas exploration, which -- by their own admission -- may ultimately kill polar bears. We need to protect the bears’ habitat, and we must do so now. The polar bear has become the mascot of all we could lose to climate change and it is critical that we fight to save this species even as we wage a larger battle against global warming.”

A year ago this week, Senator Kerry introduced the `Polar Bear Protection Act of 2007'. In January of this year, he proposed S. 2568, a moratorium on leasing in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas, which stipulates that no drilling occur unless and until "oil and gas exploration and development activities can be conducted in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Planning Areas without posing a risk of substantial adverse impact to wildlife or wildlife habitat and subsistence."

I think most people can agree that life without the polar bear is not a good trade off for the possibility of few more gallons of gas in the Hummer. It's not our right, obviously, to spoil the planet, it's our responsibility to protect it, and there are better ways to feed our energy habit than to destroy these beautiful living beings and threaten the culture and livelihood of the local people.

Of course, the administration sneaked in the drilling lease by delaying the endangered species designation. It is, after all, what they do. Thank goodness, though, not for much longer.

I'm guessing that most of us make hundreds of choices every day, maybe more, from how many times to hit the snooze button in the morning to whether it's really a good idea to stay up to watch Colbert. For me, some are as simple as deciding what to say to you nice people every morning. Today, for example, there was a choice between Senator Kerry's interview on MSNBC and Senator Obama's on CNN. I chose neither, because sometimes the choice is very clear and sometimes, there really isn't a choice at all. In the case of Myanmar, the survivors of that devastated country had no choice but to watch as their homes were destroyed and their neighbors and family members perished in the aftermath of the Cyclone Nargis.

And in the case of a compassionate nation, there's no choice but to empathize with their plight and come to their aid. It was no surprise to me who lead the Senate in that effort. I can't imagine he felt he had a choice.

“At this tragic moment, the United States has a responsibility to help the Burmese people and push the junta to allow humanitarian aid to get to the people who need it the most, freely and rapidly. This could be remembered as the moment when the United States and the world came to the aid of the Burmese people and made it clear that while we loathe the junta that has isolated Burma from the world and oppressed its citizens, we find common cause with the people of Burma and we will be there by their side at this difficult time.”
 

Even before the storm hit, the people of Myanmar (Burma) survived under a repressive government in a sometimes violent struggle for democracy. Senator Kerry has spoken on the topic in the recent past, and has pointed to the need for the US to show our solidarity with the people of Burma.
As Myanmar fights to recover from the effects of Cyclone Nargis, our hopes and prayers are with them. And if the government of Myanmar allows, our country's humanitarian aid as well. Let's hope they make the right choice.

If you watched the Obama speech last night, you know it's a little tough to follow that with video of a nomination hearing. But there is still the work of the American people to get done, and although it may not make the evening news, confirming diplomatic nominees is important stuff.

On Thursday, Senator Kerry chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing with the nominees.

Mr. Robert Stephen Beecroft
    to be Ambassador to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
Mr. James B. Cunningham
    to be Ambassador to the State of Israel
Mr. Richard E. Hoagland
    to be Ambassador to the Republic of Kazakhstan
Mr. Joseph Evan LeBaron
    to be Ambassador to the State of Qatar

Here are the Senator's opening remarks. The full video is available at the committee website.

As Obama said in his speech last night, it's about everybody. So in that spirit, here's a bit of Obama for those of you who missed it.

It's strange, I think, that the term 'tree hugger' is used as a pejorative by some folks. I have a close family member who I've heard use the phrase in a derogatory way, and I'm bothered by it. What's more, she used it to describe me, who wouldn't be seen in public in a pair of Birkenstocks, really can't be bothered to go hiking, and puts on a suit to go to work most mornings. I'm more likely to grab a donut than a bowl of granola, although I will eat it if there's no Cap'n Crunch, and the last time I rode a bike, I think I was twelve. But because I buy carbon credits, have changed my light bulbs to CFLs, and I insist on 35 mpg when I buy a car, things I consider sound economic and environmental judgment, to her that makes me a tree hugger. Well, so be it then.

There's something about the environmentally aware that bothers the environmentally ambivalent, and I'm not too sure what that is. But I've decided to embrace the label, and am giving her a copy of This Moment On Earth next Christmas just to see her reaction. I'll buy the paperback in case I'm forced to hit her over the head with it.

What tree-hugger detractors don't consider is that trees are a lot more than something that you'll never see anything lovelier than. They're crucial to the health of the planet, and necessary in the fight against climate change. And what's really scary is that deforestation is happening at an alarming rate, and all of us, tree-huggers and non-tree-huggers alike, are going to end up paying the price.

Photo: Jami Dwyer/Wikimedia Commons

Although deforestation contributes approximately 20 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change, there is currently no provision in international climate treaties that addresses the problem. In this Earth Day hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry discusses the problem of deforestation, describes what he's seen of it in his travels, and asks witnesses Stuart Eizenstat, Dr. Kevin Gurney, David Hayes and Dirk Forrister for their insight.

Senator Kerry was at home in Massachusetts this weekend for the Third Middlesex Area Democrats Honorees Brunch, where Loretta Lillios, Richard Mucci and Donna Greska were honored with the Senator John F. Kerry Leadership Award, and where he spoke on the issue of climate change. The Senator is introduced by Middlesex DA Gerry Leone.

 Listen here

It's often referred to as a 'situation', but I think the word is a bit too sterile and evasive to describe the carnage in the Darfur region of Sudan. 'Situation' is a pretty good word to use when your waiter tells you your card's been rejected, or when your kid gets caught lifting something from the Target or when your hot water heater is on the fritz. Because when asked about it, you can always say, "we had a little 'situation', but it's OK now."

No, I really don't think the word is a good one to use to describe what's happening in Darfur.

Hard to imagine, isn't it? Watching your child starve to death or be taken to fight in a war before he's big enough to carry a gun. It's unfathomable to most of us, and yet it happens every day in the Sudan, and we've not done nearly enough to stop it. We say that we'll never allow it to happen again, but while we're fighting a civil war in a country that has done no harm to us, atrocities like Darfur continue, and the result of our inaction looks like this child and his mother.

We say 'never again', but in Darfur, 400,000 lives have been lost and 2.3 million of the six million citizens of Darfur are displaced. And as the Janjaweed continues to rape and murder, to destroy villages and torture the innocent, the Sudanese government turns a blind eye to the atrocities.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a hearing on the Darfur genocide yesterday. Here's Senator Kerry questioning U.S. envoy to the Sudan, Richard Williamson. You can view the hearing in its entirety at C-Span.

Photos courtesy Wikimedia Commons

OK. I'm from Pennsylvania and I'm a little bitter, so you're just going to have to excuse this post as the long repressed result of my ire. Because I have spent practically every evening for the last nine months writing about what John Kerry has done for this country and for Massachusetts, sometimes barely able to keep up with the legislation and the speeches and the hearings, and now a bunch of obstructionist, warmongering, Bush-enabling, knuckle-dragging jerks are claiming he's not doing enough?

Screw you, NRSC and your weak-kneed, loser candidates.

Who has kept us in Iraq, despite the legislation Senator Kerry introduced to get us out? Who has racked up massive debt, squandered our hard-earned taxpayer dollars, lied us into a trillion dollar war that has cost thousands of lives, and practically destroyed the good name of the United States of America while letting the people who attacked us escape? Who is responsible for $3.30 gasoline, the loss of our good jobs to outsourcing and the fact that many of us still don't have health care?

Who obstructed more Senate business last year in half the time of any previous Congress?

Well, I'll give you a hint, it wasn't John Kerry. So if you want to talk about what he hasn't done, fine. Because he hasn't done any of that. What he has done is this. Go ahead, look at it. Anything there look good to you? How about getting out of Iraq responsibly, or help for small business, or veterans care, or 'kids first'? There are hundreds of good pieces of legislation listed, and if any of it didn't get passed, go find a Republican and ask him why.

Listen, I just finished my taxes, and this is not a good day to mess with me. I'm sick of watching good legislation die because some idiot Republican in Congress thinks it's more important to suck up to George Bush than to help the American people. Don't like the bill? Well, just say so, but don't lie and say the Democrats -- especially John Kerry -- haven't done anything. Because I've written about 300 posts here in the past nine months that say otherwise.

OK, I'm done. For now. But you can bet I'll write a post about every bill, every amendment this sorry lot of Republican reprobates has blocked if they keep this up. I'm sick of politicians who think Americans are so stupid we can't see for ourselves who is acting in our best interest. We've been bamboozled by Republican dirty tricks one too many times, and, to borrow a phrase from the liar in chief, we won't get fooled again.

Senator Kerry's internet director explained this all in a bit calmer fashion in his post at BlueMassGroup, so I'm just going to re-post it here and you can see what all the fuss is about. Sorry I couldn't give this a better intro, BriVT, but despite what you might be hearing from Hillary, we Pennsylvanians are a little angry these days.

Re-posted from BlueMassGroup

The National GOP Attack On Kerry
by: BriVT
Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 18:07:51 PM EDT
(Facts are such stubborn things! - promoted by David)

{disclaimer: I'm John Kerry's Internet Director}

It's always fun when the GOP attacks these days. What with gas pushing $4 a gallon, their nominee calling for 100 years in Iraq (or a thousand, make it a million!), and our economy rampaging toward recession, it's kind of tough to run on the issues. And when you have a bench as bare of credible candidates as MA ... whaddya gonna do?

Lie. Avoid the issues. And put a picture of Britney Spears on it.

The gruesome details (with bad pop culture references) below ...
As much as it pains me to do this to you, I must give you those gruesome details by embedding this YouTube from the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC):

John Kerry has authored and shepherded a number of bills into law. In fact, Knowlegis named Kerry the 12th most powerful Senator because of his effective advocacy for Massachusetts and progressive issues.

Here's a blog post with a sampling of some of them. Short version: help for veterans. Fairness for our fisheries industry. Ethics reform. And more.

As my friend (and fellow JK staffer) David Wade said:

NRSC must stand for 'nobody really shows competence.' When people get their facts this wrong they usually lose on the first round of 'Are You Smarter Than a 5th grader.' In just the last two years, John Kerry has written and passed legislation that denied congressional pensions to corrupt members of Congress like Duke Cunningham, passed legislation to establish eye injury centers for Iraq and Afghanistan war veterans, secured $13 million in disaster assistance for Massachusetts fishermen, and put the Senate on record condemning Burma's military junta.

OK, attacks are part of politics. But, note to NRSC, when you attack, can you please just get the basic modicum of facts right? I mean, really. If you are going to come in to Massachusetts from your GOP DC offices and attack our legislators, I, for one, would really appreciate it if you wouldn't be so obvious and bald with your lies.

If I can get "meta" for a second, the NRSC is mostly just trying to raise money for itself. It's far, FAR behind the DSCC in fundraising, and their entire online fundraising haul amounts to a rounding error in a day of Barack Obama's online fundraising. So they're trying to juice it any way they can. I'd feel pity, if they had the basic sense to keep their attacks in the realm of reality.

But, the question is, what are our esteemed Republican Senatorial candidates going to do about it? Are they going to allow the NRSC to destroy (well ... further destroy) the GOP's name in Massachusetts in order to fundraise for themselves? Or are Scott, Beatty, and Ogonowski going to move past lying politics and distance themselves from it?

With the ideology and policies of the GOP so thoroughly discredited, I'm sure it seems easier to run on gimmicks like these, but as much as I'm making fun of them here, this is serious. The decisions and work Senators do can make a real difference in people's lives. It can be the difference between health care for children, or those children going without. It can make the difference between a veteran getting support they need when they get home, or having to go it alone. It can make the difference between a future with new energy sources and a cleaner environment, or one with a warming planet and environmental catastrophes.

As much as the NRSC would like us to think otherwise, politics matters. Results matter. And lies just don't cut it.

For all the fuss about General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker testifying to the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees yesterday, I have to say I wasn't impressed. The problem in Iraq, as everyone including Petraeus admits, is not one that will be resolved militarily, so having the big military guy there doesn't help answer the real question of how we get out. As Sen. Kerry says, the military, including General Petraeus, are implementers of a strategy they didn't craft.

The problem with Petraeus is that he's the wrong guy to answer the real questions.

So where are the crafters? They stick this military guy up in front of the Senate and the world to talk about some military progress that doesn't address the larger issue. But it feeds the media and allows the administration to put someone in front of the American people who can actually point to some kind of accomplishment, and hope no one notices how badly Bush and company continue to screw things up.

I guess if nothing else, it was a good opportunity for the American people to see the presidential candidates at work. Rarely does the Senate get this much attention in the traditional media, so at least something good came out of the hearings. McCain, of course, still doesn't get it. Not only does he ignore the larger issue, but he continues to misrepresent the Dem position by insisting it calls for precipitous withdrawal when both Obama and Clinton and every other Dem who's spoken out about Iraq has specifically stated that their plans involve getting out in an orderly and measured manner, and helping Iraq and the neighbors to resolve the political differences. It's what Sen. Kerry has been saying for years, and it's the only responsible plan. McCain, of course, bypasses all that, and doesn't seem to want to look beyond a few military successes. Because he's got nothing else.

According to the McCain strategy, we can continue to have military successes and keep the General's champagne bottle in the back of the fridge for a hundred years at a cost of billions of dollars a week. That still won't get us any closer to resolving the political issues.

The problem with Petraeus is that he can't answer the real questions about how we resolve this. The problem with McCain is that he can't either.

I'm not saying Gen. Petraeus shouldn't testify before Congress. He should, and it was important to hear his testimony. But the problem isn't his to resolve, and the media and John McCain are missing that overarching reality.

So, who is the right person to fix Bush's massive blunder? Certainly, failed Secretary of State Condi Rice, who was laughingly floated last week as a potential VP pick for McCain, won't tell us anything we haven't heard from this administration before. It's going to take a Democratic president to shift the focus to the real threat and get us out of this quagmire, which is costing the American people three billion dollars a week and not making us any safer.

As Senator Kerry told Larry King last night, a lot of questions were asked yesterday, most were not answered. I don't think we'll get our answer until January.

So while yesterday didn't accomplish much except to give the American people a false sense of complacency and the media something to talk about for the next few days, at least we got to see the Senate. That's cool, I guess.

John McCain may not care if we stay in Iraq for a hundred years, but with over 4,000 American lives lost and many thousands wounded, countless thousands of Iraqis dead or displaced, the destruction of a country, a total cost to the United States in the trillions of dollars and the loss of our moral authority, the rest of us want out. McCain and Joe 'Zell' Lieberman are part of a shrinking minority in the Senate who don't want this war to end, with decent Republicans like Chuck Hagel supporting the Dem position that Kerry-Feingold proposed nearly two years ago and that Sen. Kerry has been talking about for much longer. At a time when 81% of Americans think this country is headed down the wrong path, it's incredible that McCain, who has embraced Bush's economic and foreign policies, has any support at all.

I suppose we'll focus on McSame's irrational policies as soon as we have a nominee. The media, except for Keith Olbermann and Dan Abrams have pretty much given him a pass, but I don't see how that can last. McCain really is Bush, only older. In some respects he's worse, if you can imagine. And no one wants that.

Anyway, back to Iraq. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a series of hearings last week, and on Wednesday they addressed both the military and political prospects of our continued presence. I think 'get out' was a common theme.

As Senator Kerry reminds us in this exchange with three retired generals, we are now in our fifth war in Iraq. I wonder how many John McCain wants?

The Senate was back from spring break this week, and Senator Kerry hit the ground running, with what might be a personal best in appearances, at least in my recent memory -- on the Senate floor, in a week long series of hearings on Iraq, in the Foreign Relations Committee, Finance on anti-terrorism, and in Commerce --culminating in a media blitz on cable news and radio. Oh, and THK made an appearance with Michelle Obama, so we'd like to show you that as well.

There was so much Kerry, in fact, that Kerstin and I had to poll our friends to see what they wanted to watch first. We are Democrats, after all, so we did the democratic thing and voted on it. Floor speech on home foreclosures was the clear winner, so here it is. As it happens, the Senator spent part of his 'break' with constituents who are caught in the foreclosure nightmare, so he had a lot to say on the subject.

Kerry, Smith Push for Reform to Help 80,000 American Families Struggling with the Housing Crisis

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) pushed for Senate passage of their Mortgage Revenue Bond proposal today, which would provide an additional $10 billion of tax-exempt private activity bond authority to be used to refinance subprime loans, providing thousands of mortgages for first-time homebuyers, and multifamily rental housing.

“Washington needs to show the same commitment to Main Street Americans struggling to keep their homes as it has to the big lenders on Wall Street,” said Kerry. “By including $10 billion in targeted mortgage help, we are delivering relief to those who need help the most. With an expansion of the mortgage revenue bond program, our bill would keep more families facing foreclosure in their homes and help first-time homebuyers get a safe, fair mortgage.”

“Owning a home should provide stability, not uncertainty and stress,” Smith said. “Refinancing options will help families stay in their homes and keep neighborhoods on solid footing. Steadying housing prices will help steady the economy. Action is not just prudent, it is necessary.”

At a time when families across the nation desperately need help to avoid foreclosure, these funds will provide thousands of safe, fair mortgages to homeowners facing foreclosure and families looking for their first home. In Massachusetts alone, the National Association of State and Local Housing Finance Agencies estimates that 1,110 new loans could be provided. Nationally, it could result in almost 80,000 new loans. For Oregon, the increased bond cap will translate to roughly $122 million in new bond authority to address the state’s housing needs.

Approximately 1.7 million subprime ARMs worth $367 billion are expected to reset during 2008 and 2009. According to the National Association of Home Builders, every new mortgage revenue bond home loan produces almost two full-time jobs, $75,000 in additional wages and salaries and $41,000 in new federal, state and local revenues. Also, each new home loan results in an average of $3,700 in new spending on appliances, furnishings, and property
alterations.

Keeping people in their homes is not only good for those families who are caught up in the mortgage crisis, but for our economy. And right now, both need all the help they can get.

And the KerryVision team was lucky to participate. While we didn't get to ask questions, most of what we were curious about was answered anyway. The Senator does not leave out any details.

The call was originally billed as a Massachusetts blogger call, and the topic of discussion was to center around the Senate reelection campaign and Mass.- central issues. Well, you can imagine how that worked out! We had Mass. bloggers, Kerry-centric bloggers, and supporters participating in what ended up being a wide-ranging and informative conversation.

The Senator was having a rather busy day at the Capitol on Thursday - 50 votes or more on the budget bill, at least - so he was delayed by a few minutes getting on the line with us. Once he did, however, he hit the ground running, telling us that he is fully engaged in his reelection campaign, and takes nothing for granted. (The campaign has organized an event for this upcoming Saturday to have the Senator and volunteers collect signatures in the Boston area, with food and drinks for everyone afterwards.)

'....we're down here usually Monday through Friday. We've got a lot of votes - we'll be voting all day today. I don't know what we'll wind up with - 30,40,50 votes....we're voting on the budget with some major confrontations on the tax issue, such as who gets the tax breaks. We're trying to keep the breaks for the middle class and keep them away from the wealthiest and most powerful interests in the country....', Senator Kerry informed us. Just that morning the Senate passed a major AIDS bill he had written six years ago with Senator Frist, that added $ 50 Billion in aid and assistance to go around the world.

After this intro, we then launched into the Q and A session of the call:

On strategy against his Senate re-election opponents on each side - O'Reilly and Ogonowski:

- I'm just doing my job. I'm not going to change suddenly. I'm going to do things the people sent me down here to do. I've led the fight to end the war; I was the individual who put the amendment on the floor in August of 2006 against the advice and to the delight of many of my colleagues and we got 13 votes. Then we got 30 votes when I brought it back later, and finally we got 52 votes. So it is now the majority position of the US Senate.

I don't think anybody could lead more effectively or stronger than I did on that issue, and we got it done. We built a majority in the Senate to actually vote to set a date and begin to redeploy the troops. I also believe you have to do it in a responsible way that recognizes out interests in the region and I'm doing that.

So, I'll just do my job - continue what I'm doing, and let the record speak for itself.

On possible concerns in certain geographical areas and voting blocs that might need special attention:

- I'm going to work everywhere. I've constantly been moving around the state, but I always do that. It's not a matter of only doing that during an election year. I try to get around the state as much as I can, meeting with mayors, different constituencies, etc. My attitude is "don't leave any stone unturned" and we won't. '

On what the major challenges are for Massachusetts in this election year:

- I think the single biggest challenge on people's minds is the economy: how to create more jobs, how to hold on to the pay levels people have and to be able to pay the bills. Pay the mortage, the energy costs, pay tuitions which have gone up. Most of the costs to the average person are going up and wages are NOT going up commensurate with that.

So, jobs, the environment, national security, energy costs, are the really big issues.

At this point, Senator Kerry was called away for a vote on the floor. He was very apologetic and asked if he could put us on hold. Umm, Senator? We surely don't mind being placed on hold for something as important as voting on the country's future. Besides, your hold music is rather pleasant to listen to!

And while we're on hold, let's take a look at some recent work JK has been involved in for MA:

Yesterday, we wrote about dissent, something that's not tolerated in the Bush administration. In the interest of fairness, I thought we'd write today about something they seem to be OK with.

The Washington Monthly has published a series of essays in their current issue from a number of leading politicians and high ranking military officials on the subject of America's use of torture, including one from Senator Kerry. The conclusion by all?

Stop.

Nothing has done more to undercut America's struggle against extremism than the Bush administration's squandering of our nation's good reputation. The torture, abuse, unlawful detention, and related un-American practices associated with Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and CIA interrogations at "black sites" have been as unwise as they have been unprincipled. Most of us can agree that sometimes, in the name of national security, it is necessary to make difficult ethical decisions to protect the American people. However, the administration's dangerous and counterproductive choice to employ torture has severely weakened our ability to win the struggle against extremism. It has also wasted our greatest asset: our moral authority. - John Kerry

The purpose of the series of articles, as Republicans prepared to uphold President Bush's veto of ban on torture, is to encourage the three Presidential candidates to speak out on the topic. All three have in the past, although Senator McCain, in his lust for the presidency, has recently changed his position. Seems he was against torture before he was for it. Pretty shocking from someone who was actually subject to torture back in his POW days, and sad that McCain is willing to set aside his sense of right and wrong and hang on to Bush's threadbare coattails.

The issue has come up on the Democratic side, with Barack Obama citing a Clinton quote where she wavered in her opposition. For the most part, both have spoken out strongly against the use of torture, although Clinton has cited exceptions.

Even if the Republicans in Congress and the Bush administration are not willing to consider the moral implications, they should at least consider the lack of success in intelligence gathering via torture, as a new study - Epistemic Systems - has shown:

KEY FINDINGS FROM THE STUDY

• Torture is not an effective means to gather information.
• Torturers do not know the truth when they hear it. Torture victims understand this fact and therefore hide the truth.
• Torturers cannot make a believable promise to stop torture when they hear the truth. Torture victims understand this fact and therefore hide the truth.

Some, though, have been consistent in defending America's moral values. We've posted this video before, but it's worth a replay. Senator Kerry spoke on the Senate floor in September, 2006 in opposition to the Republican torture bill.

"The bedrock of America’s greatest advances—the foundation of what we know today are the defining values of our country—was formed not by cheering on things as people saw them and as they were, but by taking them on and demanding change."

"So here today we must insist again that fidelity, honor, and love of country and untrammeled debate and open dissent take place. At no time is that truer than in the midst of a war rooted in deceit and justified by continuing deception."

"Dissent" is my favorite John Kerry speech. It is uniquely American, and speaks to the foundations of our democracy. I really don't think it's George Bush's favorite, though. Actually, he probably doesn't have a favorite John Kerry speech, if you can believe that.

Which brings me to my point.

Admiral William "Fox" Fallon stepped down as head of U.S. Central Command yesterday, effective the end of the month. Why, you might ask, would a 40 year veteran resign from such an important post? The Admiral explains:

"Recent press reports suggesting a disconnect between my views and the president's policy objectives have become a distraction at a critical time and hamper efforts in the Centcom region.''

He left because of perceived differences with Bush's strategy on Iran. So even the perception of dissent is enough to warrant the pink slip from this administration.

In an Esquire interview, the magazine called Fallon " ... the rarest of creatures in the Bush universe: the good cop on Iran, and a man of strategic brilliance." Well, that's enough of a disconnect right there. No one would accuse the Bush administration of 'strategic brilliance'. But did he leave, as Defense Secretary Gates stated, of his own accord, or was he pushed out? The Bush administration is not known as a big fan of dissent. As the Esquire article concludes, "... time will tell whether being reasonable will cost Admiral William Fallon his command." It didn't take long.

Senator John Kerry made the following statement today about the retirement of Admiral William Fallon. Kerry pressed Congress to pose tough questions about whether Fallon was dismissed for voicing dissent against a rush to war with Iran.

“Congress needs to determine immediately whether Admiral Fallon’s resignation is another example of truth tellers being forced to the sidelines in the Bush Administration. His departure must not clear the way for a rush to war with Iran.

Admiral Fallon has been a voice of common sense and truth in an Administration where candor has been in tragically short supply. He was correct in warning that we diverted resources from Afghanistan to fight a war of choice in Iraq, and correct in warning of the risks of a rush to war with Iran.

Over these last seven Bush years, we’ve seen those who toe the company line get rewarded and those who speak inconvenient truths get retired. We know that George Tenet got the Medal of Freedom for “slam dunk” evidence on non-existent WMD’s and General Shinseki got retired for telling the truth about the troop levels needed in Iraq.

The looming question now is whether the cost of Admiral Fallon’s candor was his job.”

Senator Kerry has always been a champion for Veterans' causes, so when he and Senator Snowe introduced the Military Reservist and Veteran Small Business Reauthorization and Opportunity Act (S. 1784) last year, it was in keeping with this tradition.
The bipartisan bill was designed to increase loans and business training resources to veterans and help reservists to keep their businesses going during a possible deployment.

“Massachusetts’ 477,000 veterans, including the more than 28,000 who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan, will now have access to real opportunities to start and grow their businesses. Our veterans who put their lives on the line for our national security deserve economic opportunity when they come home, and this bipartisan achievement is one small way we can repay them for their hard work and sacrifice.”

The bill was actually signed into law by Bush earlier this month, which should be a good thing, right? Wrong! And the following exchange between Senator Kerry and Small Business Administration chief Steven Preston shows why:

KERRY: The bottom line is, we’d like to know how much money, if in fact it’s an issue of not having money, we want to know how much it is, because that’s a priority program for the Committee and it’s kind of an unfortunate charade if veterans are being told that Congress passed a bill to help them get into the business, and then they try to do it and we say there is no money. We did not intend for that. We thought that was contained within the fees. The current fees were supposed to be able to pay for that.

PRESTON: Well, my colleague just gave me the number we have in the veteran’s piece. Assuming a billion dollar program, the cost would be about $42 million. And I think last year we had just over $900 million in veteran’s loans, so that should be a good indicator.

…

KERRY: Is the veteran’s component contained within your budget request now?

PRESTON: No, it’s not.

KERRY: Is there a reason why not? Would that not be a major priority for this administration?

PRESTON: Well the veteran’s bill was just passed, so it’s not something we would have been able to reflect in our budget, and I know we’ve been having conversations…

KERRY: How will we get at it now? Will they ask for it in the supplemental? Will they agree to raise this amount?

PRESTON: What we would need to do is work with you in the appropriations process…

KERRY: Will the administration support funding for that?

PRESTON: I don’t know at this point, I would need to work with my colleagues in the administration and bring back an answer for you.

KERRY: So you don’t know at this point whether or not you’re willing to fund the veteran’s program that was signed into law by the President? Sign it into law and not fund it?

PRESTON: I don’t have an answer for you on specifically subsidizing the veteran’s 7(a) program.

KERRY: Can you get that for us?

PRESTON: Yeah.

KERRY: How long will it take to get that?

PRESTON: I don’t know, but we’ll be in touch with your staff right after this hearing.

KERRY: Thank you.

There you have it. Once again, the Bush administration showed its true colors. "Sure, let's sign a bill into law to make us look good (can we say No Child Left Behind? I thought we can), but then let's just ignore it from here on out and especially let's not waste any of the intended funds on it!"

It really should come as no surprise that, yet again, an important program goes unfunded, and as usual it's one of the expendable groups taking the hit. The boondoggle in Iraq is costing the government 400 Million Dollars a day. That leaves precious little cash for worthier causes, even if they are bills that have been signed into law.

In a press conference this week, Joe Biden called Afghanistan the forgotten war, and Pakistan the neglected frontier. Yesterday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, intent on insuring the new opportunities resulting from post-election Pakistan are not neglected, questioned Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte on the Bush administration's plans for working with the newly elected Pakistan parliament.

As Senator Kerry noted:

"We have seen elections where nothing happens after the fact... We made certain that what we heard from President Musharraf, that his commitment to help Pakistan return to civilian rule remains genuine. An election alone does not make for real democracy, let alone a functioning government."

Of course, the future Pakistan is largely in the hands of the new parliament, and the election results are a hopeful sign, as well as a real opportunity for the US to forge a new relationship with what we all hope will be a real functioning democracy. The senators urged that we seize upon this chance to significantly increase non-military aid in addition to refocusing on the training and support of the Pakistan military to deal with militant extremists and the various indigenous insurgencies.

There is, of course, the Senator's original plan with respect to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda to 'talk them to death', but that would require a whole lot more Senators, so probably best to go with plan 'B'.

Eat your vegetables.

This hearing -- and I like hearings -- was about as exciting as the title of this post. I tried to jazz up the title a bit, but it's pretty representative of the three hours of statements and testimony the way it is. As a friend who watched the hearing with me later said, it's like eating your vegetables. I guess you gotta. Besides, if you were looking for a hearing with pizzazz, the Roger Clemens steroid fib-fest was happening at the same time. You may have seen that one, it was live on every cable news channel.

Don't get me wrong. It was an important three hours. We're talking about a $39.5 billion dollar budget for things like counter-insurgency, reconstruction, humanitarian aid, and other projects related to our relations with the rest of the world. And I will apologize to the Senators and Sec. Rice in advance for this because I know it's gotta be done, but the best description I heard of this hearing was 'substantive'. It was. That means dull, by the way.

Really, we should thank the SFRC members for actually sitting through this stuff. As the Senator notes, several of the committee members didn't, and left during questioning. I feel their pain.

Maybe I'm just used to fiery JK speeches about dissent and patriotism and taking on the status quo, and not sitting through hours of Senators talking to Condi Rice about how much money we need for this or that project in Afganistan. It just seems unusual to have Condi testify to the SFRC and not blast her on Bush's failed policies and out of control spending. But as much as I liked watching the SFRC hold this administration's feet to the fire, I won't miss Condi and her pals when they're gone.

During this primary season, it's difficult even for folks in the same party to get along. But we've found an issue that the left, the right, and all of us in between can agree on.

And Senator Kerry is leading the way.

Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.) led a bipartisan group of legislators today to introduce a bill that would expedite the adoption of electronic prescribing technology in every doctor’s office in America. Prescribing electronically instead of by-hand has been proven to save lives and cut costs on a massive scale.

As a result of prescription errors, American hospital patients are hit with 1.5 million injuries each year, according to the Institute of Medicine. Medication errors will kill at least 7,000 Americans in 2007. Of the more than three billion prescriptions written each year, doctors report nearly one billion require a follow-up between providers and pharmacies for clarification. The health-care system costs are in the billions.

Kerry’s bill would foster the adoption of e-prescribing by providing permanent Medicare funding for payment bonuses to physicians who acquire e-prescribing technology. In addition, for every Medicare prescription a doctor writes electronically, they will be paid an extra 1% bonus. Starting in 2011, Medicare physicians who are not electronically prescribing would face financial penalties.

In November, Senator Kerry, chair of the Commerce Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Innovation, held a hearing on carbon sequestration and introduced S.2323 The Carbon Capture and Storage Technology Act of 2007 which funds technology to reduce the impact of carbon emissions and slow the growing threat of global climate change. Although the ultimate solution lies in renewables, coal as a source of energy is not going away any time soon, and the need to address the negative effect of coal-fired power plants is urgent.

“If the United States continues to turn a blind eye to dangerous emissions, we will be forced to climb an even steeper hill in battling global climate change,” said Senator John Kerry. “Carbon capture and storage technologies hold enormous potential to reduce our emissions as we power our economy. This legislation and today’s hearing offer a chance to embrace smart solutions the American way: by harnessing technology to help combat the climate change threat.”

Here's the CRS summary of the bill:

One of the recurring topics in the current Presidential race and probably the most serious problem our country is facing today is our flagging economy. The Fed's rapid-fire rate cuts are an attempt to stop the bleeding. Congress and the administration have proposed an economic stimulus package to the same end. Some argue that this is all just an attempt to throw a bucket of cold cash on the raging flames of this administration's economic failures. Probably true, but I don't think it's the wrong thing to do. Perhaps at this point, it's the only thing to do. If it's done it the right way.

Now I'm no expert, but even someone like me who has trouble keeping her checkbook balanced can see that if the point is to infuse the economy with cash, the key to making the stimulus work is to get the money to those who are likely to spend it. That's why it makes sense to include low income workers and seniors, who are likely to put the money immediately back into the economy. But simply handing out cash to folks so they can pay a few bills and buy more Chinese made stuff is putting a band-aid on a gaping wound. So the Senate is attempting to tackle the problem a bit more holistically, and is focusing not just on cash rebates, but help with the more deep rooted issues. One of those, perhaps the biggest and nastiest, is subprime loans. That's where the Kerry-Smith plan hopes to make a real difference. If people can afford their mortgages, they'll pay them, boost the economy, and keep their homes, something that's much more likely to reverse our downward economic spiral and improve the lives of low income families than a $600 check.

The Senate Finance Committee agrees that we have to include more in the stimulus than rebates, and the Kerry-Smith plan passed the committee with strong bipartisan support. The full hearing is available at C-SPAN's video library.

He's going to try, but I don't think Bush's attempt at a pocket veto will fly. For one thing, it only works when the Congress is not in session, and the Senate is currently in session. Even if the President closes his eyes and clicks his heels and wishes very, very hard, they're still in session and he can't change that since the Constitution says Congress is the decider here, not Mr. Bush.

It should be understood that the President possesses no pocket veto power as such. A pocket veto is something the Congress causes. It is the result that occurs when Congress waives its right to reconsider legislation when its adjournment prevents the return of the bill. CRS Report

The way I interpret it is that the Congress decides when they can accept a bill from the Executive, since the Constitution states explicitly that Congress makes their own rules. So, in my opinion, the pocket veto doesn't apply unless the Congress says it does.

Regardless, the Senate is in session, thanks to Harry Reid and some east coast Senators who were willing to come to work over break (it's what you get for living that close to the office), and Nancy Pelosi has the House covered.

When adjourning before Christmas, the House instructed the House clerk to accept any communications -- such as veto messages -- from the White House during the monthlong break.

Yesterday, the Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard Subcommittee of the Commerce Committee held a hearing in the wake of the recent San Francisco oil spill on the impact and the need for preventive rules that will protect our waterways and coastlines from this hazard.

Senator Kerry spoke on the topic and specifically on the impact of the Buzzards Bay spill, the Coast Guard opposition to the Massachusetts legislation, and the continuing effort to recover from the 2003 disaster.

“The Buzzards Bay oil spill caused severe damage to the bay's fragile ecosystem and shellfishing activities. It’s incredible that almost five years later, the community is still dealing with the after effects, and the Coast Guard is still fighting new protective measures,” said Senator Kerry. “1.6 billion gallons of fuel travel through Buzzards Bay each year, and local entities have the specialized knowledge to help prevent future oil spills. While the Coast Guard has done a good job responding to the oil spill, they haven’t been nearly as constructive preventing the next disaster. Preempting the State law which will help prevent future oil spills is a mistake we can’t afford. The number and severity of oil spills in Buzzards Bay are proof enough that this area needs the preventative actions that the state law intended.”

The Senator's statement on the FISA bill from johnkerry.com:

FISA, Congress, and the Constitution

by John Kerry on December 17th, 2007

There’s been a lot of discussion about the FISA bill today.

I was one of ten Senators to vote against cloture on the initial motion to proceed to the bill, along with Senator Feingold, Dodd and others.

Here’s the statement I filed with my vote, which is now part of the Congressional Record for today’s discussions:

Mr. President, today I voted against cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 2448 as reported by the Senate Intelligence Committee because I believe that we should instead be taking up on the Senate floor the far better bill reported out by the Judiciary Committee.

Congress has a duty to protect the American people — and to protect the Constitution. That’s the oath we take. It’s a solemn pledge, and in my judgment the Judiciary Committee bill better reflects the oath we each swear to uphold. Why? The Judiciary Committee’s bill gives the President the added flexibility he needs to hunt and capture terrorists who would strike our homeland — but it strikes an appropriate balance between protecting the privacy rights of American citizens and providing the President adequate tools to fight international terrorism.

This is no small issue. It’s the job of Congress to find the right balance between protecting privacy and safeguarding national security. The Judiciary bill makes critical improvements to the Protect America Act to ensure independent judicial oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). It allows the secret FISC greater authority to act as an independent check on unfettered Executive power.

The Judiciary bill provides the court the authority to assess the government’s ongoing compliance with its wiretapping procedures, places limits on the way the government uses information acquired about Americans, and lets the court enforce its own orders.

The Judiciary bill also safeguards Americans against widespread warrantless spying. It reaffirms that FISA is the exclusive statutory authority for conducting foreign intelligence surveillance, prohibits limitless “fishing expeditions” — so-called “bulk collection” of all communications between the United States and overseas, and ensures that the government cannot eavesdrop on Americans under the guise of targeting foreigners — what is known as “reverse targeting.”

Most importantly, unlike the Intelligence bill, the Judiciary bill does not provide retroactive amnesty to telecommunications providers that were complicit in the Administration’s warrantless spying program. I fear this Administration is deliberately stonewalling to avoid an adverse court decision finding its surveillance program to be unconstitutional. It is seeking political security in the name of national security.

The heart of the matter is that allowing Americans their day in court — introducing some kind of accountability, affording some kind of objective authority (in lieu of the Bush Administration) to adjudicate competing claims — will shed much-needed light on the Administration’s secret surveillance program.

If the lawsuits are shielded by Congress, the courts may never rule on whether the Administration’s surveillance activities were lawful. We must hold the Administration to account. And an impartial court of law insulated from political pressure is the most appropriate setting in which to receive a fair hearing.

If the telecoms were following the law, they should get immunity, as Congress explicitly provided under the original FISA law. But our courts should decide, not Congress — and that is a matter of principle protected in the Judiciary bill, which is the bipartisan bill that should be under consideration.

I’m gratified that Senator Reid has pulled the bill from the floor for now, to give all of us more of a chance to debate the bill and make sure we get legislation that protects our national security without infringing on our Constitutional rights.

He won't tell us why, but despite overwhelming objections of Senators and House members from both sides of the aisle, including Senators Kerry, Obama, Lott and Dorgan, and against the warnings of FCC Commissioners Copps and Adelstein and the will of 70% of the public, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin is refusing to delay an attempt to relax media ownership rules on Tuesday. If successful, Martin will deliver his gift to big media just in time for Christmas, although the ensuing backlash may look more like the Fourth of July.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), and Barack Obama (D-Ill.) asked Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin to delay a vote on media ownership until the FCC has followed the will of Congress and established a commission to look into minority and women media ownership. Kerry and Obama made clear that if Martin once again bucked the Congress, they would ask the Appropriations Committee to deny funding for implementation of the rule produced by the forced vote.

“This is a show-down with an FCC Chairman who is letting the FCC do the bidding of big corporate conglomerates without giving smaller media outlets a chance to fight back,” said Senator John Kerry. “I want to thank Sen. Obama for joining with me to help hold the FCC accountable, and ensuring that it promotes a more diverse, independent media in America.”

The Senate Commerce Committee held a hearing on Thursday to discuss media ownership. In it, Senator Kerry urged a delay on the rule change pending further scrutiny.

JK was on Larry Kudlow's show yesterday, which is always interesting. It's one show that I really have to focus on when I watch, since a lot of what's discussed goes right over my head. The issue of Sarbanes-Oxley, though, is one I understand fairly well, and feel is critical. It ensures the safety of the business, shareholders and the general public, with the intent of avoiding another 'Enron'. But there is a drawback.

The problem with Sarbox (aka SOX) is that it's incredibly labor intensive and expensive for small businesses to comply. No doubt this extension will keep a lot of them from either noncompliance or inability to stay afloat trying to meet the reg. Nice work by Kerry and Snowe.
In addition to Sarbox, the Senator and Kudlow discussed subprime lending, the AMT, technology and investment, IPOs, why some companies are choosing to go private, and the dreadful management of economic issues by the Bush administration. A lot of stuff, and a really good interview.

On second thought, it might be dangerous. The warning specifically mentions red lipstick, which is neither my nor Sen. Boxer's color, but Sen. Feinstein is definitely a red lipstick wearin' gal. And although the test doesn't mention other shades, I think I'll consider going au naturale for the time being.

This is truly bizarre. I've been protected from putting lead based paint on my walls since 1978, but I can still put it on my lips? I thought they stopped using lead in makeup during the reign of Queen Elizabeth when they discovered it killed people. There is something seriously wrong here.

Earlier this week, Senators Kerry, Boxer and Feinstein wrote to the FDA regarding lead levels in lipstick.

“I was surprised to learn that lipsticks worn every day have been found to contain dangerous levels of lead. The Food and Drug Administration needs to fully investigate the potential health risks posed by lead in lipsticks. And federal guidelines may be needed to safeguard women’s health and reduce the amount of lead in cosmetic products,” U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein said.

The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, who issued the report, points out that the FDA has not set a limit for lead in lipstick. High levels of lead are of particular concern to pregnant women, because high doses of lead can have significant impacts on the early brain development of babies and toddlers. Lead has been linked to learning and behavioral problems in children, such as reduced IQ, poorer school performance and aggression.

November 19, 2007

Andrew C. von Eschenbach, M.D.
Commissioner of Food and Drugs
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
5600 Fishers Lane
Rockville, MD 20857

Dear Commissioner von Eschenbach:

We are writing to express our concern regarding a series of recent news articles highlighting elevated levels of lead in many lipstick products.

As you know, the FDA currently does not regulate lead in lipstick or other cosmetic products. The Campaign for Safe Cosmetics recently conducted tests of 33 red lipsticks and found that 61% of the lipsticks contained lead at levels ranging from .02-.65 parts per million. One third of the tested products exceeded the FDA recommended limit for lead in candy, which represents the permitted lead ingestion level by children.

In response to these results, we request that FDA consider taking two actions to address lead levels in lipstick and other cosmetics:

1. FDA has indicated an interest in re-testing the same lipsticks tested by the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics. We encourage FDA to perform these tests on a wide range of other lipstick brands in a variety of colors, and to publicly report the results.

2. If the FDA reaches the same conclusions as the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, we respectfully encourage the FDA to take immediate action to reduce consumers’ lead exposure to lipstick and other cosmetic products. The FDA should issue guidance to industry, establishing a recommended maximum level of lead in lipstick and other cosmetic products, set to correspond with the lowest detectable levels found in laboratory tests.

Thank you for your attention to this issue, and we look forward to a timely response to our concerns.

Sincerely,

John F. Kerry
Barbara Boxer
Dianne Feinstein

CC: Linda Katz, Director, FDA Office of Cosmetics and Colors

If you recall from yesterday's video, The Kerrys' book covers at length the effect of toxins in the products we use, and it's also a focus of Teresa's conferences on Women's Health and the Environment.

Here's part 3, in which the Senator and Teresa continue the Q&A and the discussion of consumer product safety.

Tomorrow: The conclusion.

.....said an exasperated Kerry to the Bush administration's Science Advisor, after the latter refused to concede that the Global Climate Change situation is urgent. Dr. Marburger continued to dodge the rather direct question posed to him by Senator Kerry.

It was a dance that would have had Mikhail Baryshnikov blanch with envy, and the New York City Ballet talent scouts pounding on Marburger's door, convinced they had found their new male lead for 'Giselle'.

The exchange was part of a larger hearing by the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee which focused on the need to improve the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

While this excerpt was certainly one of the highlights, I highly recommend watching the hearing in its entirety at the Commerce, Science, and Transportation website.

Do you watch Congressional hearings? I do. Senate, mostly, and for good reason. A lot of what happens in the Senate happens off the floor. Unlike TV news and blogs and newspapers and often the Senate floor itself where the rubber frequently meets the roadblocks, in hearings you regularly see Senators from both sides get down to the business of the people they were elected to serve. There isn't the same formality in hearings that you typically see on C-SPAN if you limit yourself to gavel to gavel coverage of House and Senate proceedings, and witnesses in hearings are often asked some pretty tough questions.

So, if you're interested in the policy more than the politics, and need to kill some time during those long quorum calls, hearings are where it's at. You can watch a lot of them live and archived on committee websites and on C-SPAN and listen to live audio at CapitolHearings.org. You may even learn the answer to that really big question philosophers have been asking for centuries. Well, at least in the context of Senate hearings.

I wish I could post something like this every day.

As the Senator often reminds us, corporations are beginning to realize that being a friend to the environment is not only the right thing to do, it's profitable. Texas Instruments is one example that was highlighted in the Kerrys' book This Moment on Earth, but there are others.

In the case of TI, they were able to reduce their energy consumption to the degree that it was cost effective for them to keep their plant in the U.S. rather than moving it overseas. So, not only was it good for the company's bottom line and good for the environment, but a whole lot of Americans got to keep good, high paying jobs. That's a whole lot of good.

So, this week, NBC goes green. Green shows, green website, green peacock, even. They're still not getting me to switch from C-SPAN except to watch Keith, but I do applaud their effort.

Green tie. Nice touch, Senator.

Stay tuned for more on Sen. Kerry and Sen. Boxer's upcoming trip to Bali to lead the U.S. delegation at the next round of international talks on climate change.

When I first heard the term 'Voter Caging', I had no idea what it meant. All I could imagine were multiple arrests on election day under bogus charges to keep these particular folks from going to the polls that day. Not that this idea is so far-fetched. We all know about purging the voter rolls, so who is to say that there couldn't be a step further into that direction?

Alas, I was wrong. Voter Caging is a different, but equally disturbing and disgusting practice:

A political party or a campaign collects lists of registered voters and sends fairly innocuous mailings marked 'do not forward' or 'return to sender' to these individuals. If the mail is returned, that particular person's voter registration gets challenged on the grounds that the person is not living at the residence listed on the registration.

Typically, the main targets of such mailings are minorities and people living in minority neighborhoods. Many times, active duty military are targeted, as well. In 2004, voter caging lists were prepared in Florida (who'da thunk?), Ohio (surprise, surprise!), and Pennsylvania. (I believe it).

While not everyone agrees with Greg Palast's assessment that the 2004 election was stolen, this following youtube piece is invaluable as an explanation of how voter caging was done, and the effects it might have had.

Part Two below the fold.

The state of emergency declared in Pakistan will be imposed for "as long as it is necessary," Pakistani Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz told reporters Sunday, a day after President Pervez Musharraf announced the measure which suspends the constitution and widens his powers.

So, suddenly, after years of terrorist activity, the country is in turmoil, martial law is declared, hundreds of lawyers, judges and activists are rounded up, the press has been silenced, and there is the very real possibility that elections will be suspended. Or perhaps that's the point.

Bush's response is that the situation is "disappointing and disturbing". Sec. Rice calls it "a very big problem".

You don't say? Well, that's a brilliant observation that anyone watching the news could have told us.

In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes.

- Benjamin Franklin

When it comes right down to it, 'following the money' has often been the most direct path to exposing corruption. It worked back in the late 80s when Sen. Kerry followed the terrorist's money straight to BCCI, and it looks like the Senator has found another opportunity to crack open the door and shine some light by checking into an organization's finances.

Blackwater LLC may have found a way to avoid accountability for the indiscriminate killing of Iraqi civilians, for drawing weapons on our own troops and for weapons smuggling. They may be neck and neck with Halliburton for the no-bid contract championship. In short, they're 'getting away with murder'. Maybe.

Military contractors, or mercenaries if you prefer, have actually lost over a billion of our tax dollars in Iraq. Lost it. And in an astonishing and ironic discovery, it seems that one such company, Blackwater, may be cheating on their taxes. Which, in reality are our taxes. Because we're paying them for all this. Let me put that another way. We've paid Blackwater a billion of our tax dollars, and in return, they're believed to be scamming on their own.

Sen. Kerry queries Bush admin on Blackwater taxes

U.S. Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday asked the Bush administration about any role it played in the possible evasion of nearly $32 million in taxes by Blackwater USA, the private security firm already under scrutiny over the killing of Iraqi civilians.

"The Bush administration can't hide Blackwater in the shadows anymore -- it's time to bring all of their dealings to light," Kerry, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Senate's Small Business Committee, said in a statement. Kerry sent a letter to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which his committee oversees, expressing concern that Blackwater relied on an SBA decision for tax purposes.

But it's important.

Have you ever been to Europe? Funny, but in the times I've been there, I've rented a car just once. Because if you go to London or Paris or Rome or just about anywhere else 'across the pond', you'll find that public transportation, rail in particular, will get you just about anywhere. Cheap.

Why, then, does the United States of America not enjoy the same convenience as our friends in Europe? For the life of me, I don't know. But according to Sec. of Transportation Peters, we've got a 'four point plan' to address our transportation woes.

Well, that ought to get you to work on time.

I'd really like to know more about this 'four point plan' of ours. I looked on the DOT website. Nothing. I googled 'four point plan for transportation', and I did find a site with a really cool picture of a high speed train and some plans for improving transportation. In Dublin. Still looking for ours.

Yesterday in the Commerce, Science and Transportation hearing, Senator Kerry questioned Peters on the viability of our infrastructure. It's not really a topic that catches the headlines unless something goes wrong. There was a lot of much needed focus on bridges and highways in the hearing and not only because they're falling down in places like Minnesota and all across America. JK talked a lot about bridge and highway issues local to Massachusetts yesterday in the hearing.

But what caught my attention was the discussion of rail. I know this doesn't sound like a really pressing issue, but it is. We Americans need innovative solutions to our infrastructure problems, desperately. In addition to meeting our highway needs, improving our rail system would address so many of our transportation problems. He talked about that, too.

Burma, or Myanmar, as it is now called, has gone through terrible bloodshed since KV last reported on the revolution. Monasteries were stormed and monks beaten and killed in an effort by the military to quell the uprising that has been going on for two weeks now.

In the latest report by BBC News we find that 4000 monks have been rounded up and are to be moved away. In protest, many of them are refusing to eat.

The clear human rights violations and many calls for the US and other nations to do something, have prompted a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Wednesday afternoon. Senator Boxer chairs the committee, and Senator Kerry was ranking member in the 109th congress. Below is Kerry's opening statement:

When it was Senator Kerry's turn to question the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, he did not hold back. His scathing line of questioning pointed out the failure of the Bush administration to move on this issue.

In a scathing blog post yesterday morning, Senator Kerry condemned Bush and his Roadblock Republicans for once again putting party and greed before the need of our children.

Playing Chicken with Children's Health Care by John Kerry on September 27th, 2007

If there’s anybody left who doubts that “compassionate conservatism” is an Orwellian smokescreen for the same old Republican policies, listen to this:

After promising he’d work on “expanding health care for children,” the President has now unilaterally declared war on a successful, wildly popular program that gives health care to millions of low-income kids.

Democrats see a successful program, S-CHIP, and they see 11 million kids still uninsured in the richest country in the world, and they want to build on what works and expand it. Makes sense, right? But this White House is so hell-bent on denying the Democratic Congress a victory, the President’s threatening to veto health care for kids.

This is the same guy who never met a Republican spending bill he couldn’t sign. Not one. $300 million bridge to nowhere? Pass the pork. Half-trillion dollars on the road to quagmire in Iraq? Bring it on. But a few billion a year for health care for millions of kids? Forget it. Not this President. Not the “compassionate conservative.”

This time the President’s “coalition of the willing” is even more puny: a handful of right-wing ideologues who put half-baked economic theories above the all-too-real health problems of poor children and the bipartisan advice of, well, just about everyone else. Families support it. Doctors support it. Hospitals support it. Many Republican governors support it. Hell, even insurance companies like this bill!

The President still says he’s committed to “expanding health care to children” but his machinations on this issue tell a different story — this is what happens when people who hate government run our government: we get regulators who don’t regulate, “heckuva-job” cronies, and trickle-down tax cuts that leave middle class families feeling trickled on.

For Republicans, this S-CHIP bill is the worst threat of all: a bipartisan bill to expand a government program that actually works, and a chance for this Democratic Congress to deliver. That’s like kryptonite to Republicans, who honestly seem to think that America’s gain would be a Republican loss if it’s passed by a Democratic Congress.

His was not the only warning to put the welfare of our kids first. Senator Kennedy held a press conference a bit later, in which he challenged the Senate Republicans and Bush to do the right thing:

Video Credit: CapNewsNet

Apparently these warnings and calls for decency paid off, because late in the evening, S-CHIP passed by a margin of 67-29. The Senate vote is therefore veto-proof.

In light of yesterday's threat of a military crackdown in Burma, Senator Kerry followed up Tuesday's statement condemning impending military action with a call today for US diplomatic leadership in rallying the international community to stand behind the demonstrators.

Here is an excerpt of Senator Kerry's floor speech, given yesterday morning:

Mr. President: Against all odds, the long-suffering people of Burma have risen up against one of the world’s most repressive regimes. What began a month ago as modest, impromptu protests has since mushroomed into a nation-wide, peaceful democratic groundswell. Tens of thousands of students have joined Buddhist monks in the streets, marching and chanting in unison against Burma’s brutal military rulers.

The Burmese people should know that America and all free peoples across the globe stand in awe of their commitment and courage. Their actions follow in the venerable footsteps of Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, and all those heroes who understood that nonviolent resistance is humanity’s greatest weapon against tyranny and injustice. I want to join the President of the United States, Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer and many others in letting them know: We support your struggle. We stand with you.

What is happening today in the streets of Rangoon is as tenuous as it is unexpected. The cabal of generals, who pillage Burma under the guise of governing it, could easily meet these non-violent protests with a bloodbath, just like they did in 1988. And we must do all that we can to ensure that this does not come to pass.

We will hopefully be able to bring you the Senator's speech in its entirety and in video form by the end of the week. Meanwhile, please watch this Youtube clip of a Lehrer newscast on the Burma Demonstrations.

We at KV wish to join Senator Kerry in his pledge to stand with the Burmese people fighting for freedom and democracy. Our thoughts are with them and our hearts go out to them.

If KerryVision were to give out an Award for Decency and Integrity, Senator Joe Biden would surely be a recipient. During yesterday's debate of his Iraq Federalism Amendment, Biden acknowledged Senator Kerry's continued leadership on the issue. This was high praise indeed, and amazingly heartfelt.

Biden's expression of gratitude and respect for John Kerry came shortly after the Senator had spoken in support of the amendment and had again voiced his concerns about the situation in Iraq.

"This plan recognizes the reality that the Iraq government has not made any significant progress toward the goal of national reconciliation between Sunnis and Shiites," Kerry said in a subsequent press release. "We need a 'plan B' for Iraq. Based on what we've seen from Iraqi politicians - who in the end are representing the will of their constituents - it is increasingly clear that the only viable political solution is a federal solution."

Kerry's expression of support for the amendment also drew praise from Senator Warner, who credited him with having been one of the first in the Senate to consider the federalist approach. The Biden Amendment should come to a vote at some point this morning.

To say Senator Kerry was in rare form yesterday on the Senate floor would be a diminishing of all his previous speeches he has made on Iraq. Still, today's call for a new Iraq policy went even beyond his already brilliant record on speaking out against the failed strategy that is currently being pursued by the administration.

His point-by-point dismantling of counter-arguments, such as 'we cannot leave Iraq in the hands of Al Qaeda' or 'The surge is a success, it was only the previous approach that was the failure', revealed Senator Kerry's depth of knowledge about the history of Iraq and the world, that is amazing in its detail.

To simply recap the speech or post a transcript would not do it justice, so here is the video footage instead.

The Republicans in the Senate have done it again. Attacked the rule of law and supported the disintegration of our legal rights under the Constitution. Beachmom has many of the details at daily kos.

Here's the latest in the email inbox from Senator Kerry:

WASHINGTON D.C. – Sen. John Kerry issued the following statement today, after a majority of Senate Republicans blocked a final vote on a measure to expand the rights of prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay. The measure received 56 votes, but Republican leaders used a filibuster to insist it reach 60.

“The roadblock Republicans today stopped the Senate from demonstrating that we can keep our values and keep America safe at the same time. Only these rubberstamp Senators for George Bush believe you can’t detain enemy combatants while honoring habeas corpus,” Kerry said. “We all want to stop terrorist attacks. We all want to effectively gather as much intelligence as possible. We all want to bring those who attacked us to justice. But, we weaken our ability to do that when we undermine our own Constitution, when we throw away our system of checks and balances or when we hold detainees indefinitely without trial. We endanger our moral authority at great peril. The United States should send a signal to the rest of the world that America stands for the rule of law.”

Senator Kerry had more to say about it in September 2006:

And why is restoring habeas corpus so important? The NPR program This American Life had a Peabody Award-winning episode about it called Habeas, Shmabeus.

Give it a listen.

"It is important for us to guarantee that in the United States of America, this right that was fought for so hard through so much of the difficult history of our country, we finally make real the full measure of that right." - John Kerry

There are 100 members of the United States Senate. Of that number, 8 have co-sponsored the Count Every Vote Act of 2007.

That's not a typo. There are eight.

Here are the sponsors of the S. 804 The Count Every Vote Act of 2007:

• Sponsor
• Sen. Hillary Clinton [D-NY]
• Cosponsors
• Sen. Barbara Boxer [D-CA]
• Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
• Sen. John Kerry [D-MA]
• Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
• Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
• Sen. Barbara Mikulski [D-MD]
• Sen. Barack Obama [D-IL]

Considering we have an election coming up, wouldn't it be a really good idea to do everything possible to ensure that the election problems of 2004 aren't repeated? Do we want another Ohio, or are we ready to do something? Is there a reason 92 Senators don't agree with the eight to the extent they will co-sponsor a bill to secure our right to vote?

Ask them.

It's time to get on the phone and call the other 92.

On July 20, 2006, Senator Kerry spoke on the Senate floor of the need to secure our right to vote and to have our votes counted. He also spoke of the disenfranchisement and discrepancies of 2004, something we should all be doing. Before it's too late, and another election is stolen.

Transcript with full text of speech

Yesterday, Senator Kerry's plate was full again. His schedule called for two Boston area radio interviews, quickly followed by the SFRC hearing on the Petraeus Report at 9.30 AM. Unfortunately, one of the radio appearances had to be cancelled with very short notice due to time constraints.

We at KV were fortunate to be able to record the first interview with former Massachusetts Speaker of the House, now radio talk show host Tom Finneran. John Kerry once again did brilliantly.

Not even twenty minutes after his call-in to WRKO, Senator Kerry had to attend the hearing at the Hart Building. His turn to give a statement and question Petraeus and Crocker came roughly an hour into the proceedings:

Yesterday Senator Kerry posted and cross posted on The Escalation Didn't Work. Senator Kerry didn't mince words, he wasn't about to let the parsing and spinning take away from the fact that the escalation was not the right answer and just another in a line of failed policies of this administration.

Judgment time is here, and the only verdict is the same one we had in January, the same one we've had for a long time in Iraq: the Bush policy is a tragic failure. It's a policy that not only isn't working; it can't work. A political solution in Iraq cannot come about without a clear deadline on where our troops will be pulling out. Only Iraqis can end this civil war, and they aren't - and won't be - making any progress with an open-ended, massive presence by our military in their country.

He took time out in his busy schedule to respond to several questions and to make clear that this is not preaching to the choir:

Believe me, I intend on making this case as forcefully as I can as often as I can. Although you are selling yourself short there, many, many people read what happens here, from politicians to journalists. So making a case here is not just "preaching to the choir." A lot of others are listening in to the choir in this case. As for coordinating message, I think that's part of what we do here. This isn't a grass tops campaign, it's a grassroots campaign. One thing about Democrats: We don't march in lockstep and take orders, and I wouldn't want to belong to a party that did. But we're as united as we've ever been on this, and media reports to the contrary are overblown. Keep in mind “only one Democrat wasn't on board with our deadline the last vote we had. Harry Reid put himself on the line fighting for the Reid-Feingold amendment to fund a very different mission and change course. Don't underestimate those decisions. We've got a ways to go, but I've seen how the perseverance of you, me, and a lot of folks is paying off. We need to keep fighting.

In his opening statement of the SFRC Hearing on the Independent Assessment by the GAO, Senator Kerry goes over the assessment and concludes:  "We cannot continue to ask Americans to die for a policy that can't work or is based on a shifting rationale".

You can watch the complete hearing at the SFRC website (real player only). Links to the GAO report card and complete report are in this post.

Stay tuned for next week's hearing on the Crocker-Patraeus White House Report. It's scheduled for Tuesday, September 11th at 9:30 a.m.

The Kerry-Feingold Amendment to redeploy our troops from Iraq was proposed in June, 2006. Had it passed and been signed into law, our troops would be headed home and there would likely be some progress toward a political solution in Iraq. Sadly, there were not enough brave Senators willing to stand up at that time and do the right thing, and the situation in Iraq and the greater Middle East appears to be steadily worsening as President Bush desperately clings to his failed strategy.

The press release below lays out the particulars. Seems to me we could just change a few numbers, and this would still be a damn good plan. The Brits have realized that their continued presence is not helping matters. They've pulled back, as we should, and let the Iraqis take over responsibility for their country.

Contact your Senators and Representatives, and tell them we need to set a deadline to bring our troops home.

Senator John Warner, World War II and Korean War veteran, former Secretary of the Navy and Republican U.S. Senator from Virginia since 1979, announced Friday that he will retire from the Senate at the end of this term. You may not know that, because CNN covered about half of his announcement before switching to a bit of commentary then dropping the story almost entirely (Blitzer did a phone interview with the Senator later in the day). I couldn't find it at all on the other 'news' channels (I didn't check Fox). I guess without the scandal that surrounds Senator Craig's exit, CNN didn't feel there was a need to spend a bit of time reflecting on his life of service, indeed, letting him finish his sentence, before cutting to something a bit juicier.

Although Warner's retirement is good news considering there's a pretty decent chance of a Dem successor, I can't help but feel a little saddened by the lack of coverage and respect paid by the traditional media after such a long and respected career in the Senate.

Don't get me wrong. I disagree with Senator Warner most of the time, especially on his insistence to stick with Bush on Iraq through most of the war and occupation. Even now I find his opposition to the present course pretty weak.

But, as beachmom reminds us her diary, and as we see in this colloquy between Senator Warner and Senator Kerry during the debate on the Kerry/Feingold amendment in June, 2006, he behaved in a manner befitting the rich tradition of the Senate. When he spoke, you could be pretty sure that, although he didn't stray far from the party line, he wouldn't resort to calling people 'cut and run defeatocrats'. He was wrong on Iraq, but he was a gentleman who didn't resort to attacks and distortions to make his case.

And if you don't know how uncommon that was during the 109th Republican congress, you weren't watching enough C-SPAN.

Not enough? Maybe not. But it was something.

There are certain things that are fundamental to all Americans. Regardless of political party, the left and the right and everyone in between should be able to agree that our Constitution is sacrosanct. In it are the guiding principles of our country, the rules we live by, and the guarantees of our civil liberty.

Republicans believe it, just like the rest of us. Even Republican politicians. Or they did, once upon a time. Until the Bush administration frightened the hell out of them, they believed, and many still do, that there are certain things that Americans just don't condone. Like torture. Like wiretapping American citizens without a warrant. Like placing one branch of government above the other two.

In this first video, Reagan administration officials stand up for the Constitution, and against George Bush.

It's been almost a year since the Republican congress passed the Torture Bill, one of the most egregious pieces of legislation we've seen in the awful history of the Bush administration. Senator Kerry spoke against the bill and in defense of the Constitution and America's moral authority with this floor speech.

Whale.

OK. I know very little about whales. I do know that they're cool, though, and that Sen. Kerry is interested in making sure North Atlantic Right Whale sightings like the one in this video are something that future generations can witness.

Today, there are only 350 of these animals in existence, and protections to keep their numbers from dwindling further are stalled by the Bush administration. In a bi-partisan effort by Senators Kerry, Snowe and Kennedy, the following letter was sent to President Bush.

[Note: Guest blogger KarynNJ went far beyond the call of duty by FedExing us a good-quality recording of this fiery, memorable speech, which John Kerry gave on July 26th. Due to technical difficulties at our end, we were delayed in preparing the video, so we published her post with a lower-resolution copy from another source. We would like everyone to be able to enjoy seeing the Senator at his best, and so we are now reposting with the video which she so kindly provided.]

[Editor's note: Today's post is by guest blogger KarynNJ.]

Today, Senator Kerry took to the floor of the Senate and told the truth about which party has been trying to prevent the Congress from accomplishing any of its goals. The Republican echo chamber has been claiming that the current Congress, where Democrats lead both houses, has accomplished little. They seem to have the 110th Congress confused with the Republican Congress, which shut down the government in a fight with President Clinton.

Senator Kerry spoke of the historic nature of the Democratic victories in 2006 and how they demonstrated what the country wanted done. He listed some of the legislation that has been passed in the last six months on these issues -- things like increasing the minimum wage, raising the fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 20 years, correcting the failed policy in Iraq, improving ethics and lobbying reform, improving care and pay for the troops, and funding stem cell research. This sure sounds like a productive Congress to me.

On Wednesday, Senator Kerry urged his colleagues to vote for $50 billion dollars for the S-CHIP, the Children's Health Insurance Program -- $15 billion more than had been agreed to in a bipartisan compromise that had been engineered to ensure that the bill would pass with a veto-proof majority. While people such as Senator Grassley spoke about senatorial process and the necessity of compromise and the importance of reaching bipartisan agreements, Senator Kerry spoke directly and simply about the heart of the matter: Children. Children who depend on us, the adults, to do the right thing. Children who may suffer lifelong impairments -- blindness, deafness, learning disabilities -- because they are denied health care that would cost a tiny fraction of what is being squandered in Iraq.

This is a powerful, thoughtful and thought-provoking appeal to our basic sense of morality, as well as one of the more impassioned speeches Senator Kerry has given, at least in my recollection. Senator Kerry added a great deal that wasn't in the remarks-as-prepared, and all of it came from the heart.

If our American way of life fails the child, it fails us all. ~Pearl S. Buck

Do you believe in an afterlife?

Personally, I'm in the traditional camp. White robes, pearly gates and all. Maybe it's my name, or maybe it was the nuns, but I'm convinced that when my time is up, someone, probably St. Peter, is going to pull out a long list of my past transgressions and read them off, one by one. Then, I'm gonna have to pay for them. No golden harps or angels wings or pina coladas on St. Thomas beach until I've done my penance.

Far be it from me to judge who goes up and who goes down, but I do have a suggestion for United States Senators who have the ability to provide healthcare for children, and DON'T.
They must choose. Like Sophie. Pick the ones who get healthcare, individually, and look in the eyes of the ones who don't and tell them no. There are 9 million kids to get through, but if they split them up between the 60 Senators who voted against children yesterday, they should finish up sometime before hell freezes over.

Just a suggestion.

Senator Kerry issued the following statement on the failure of the Senate to pass his amendment:

"Today 36 Senators made it clear that health care for kids is more important than more tax cuts for millionaires, and I'm proud of this fight," Senator Kerry said. "Though our amendment fell short, we must work together to deliver the $35 billion in SCHIP funding. President Bush has made his priorities clear. He’d rather veto kids' health care and try to spin outdated ideological arguments about government health care. He's wrong. The nine million children in our country living without health care deserve more from their President and his Republican allies in Congress than tired political games. It's past time for Senators do the right thing and vote to fund SCHIP."

After a disaster like Katrina, a community finds itself confronting problems that may threaten its very survival. Even when the storm or tornado or earthquake has passed, the economic devastation can cripple a community, uprooting lives, forcing many people to move away even though their homes survived. Small businesses are especially vulnerable, and their survival is a crucial factor in determining whether people will be able to pick up the pieces of their lives and whether their community will truly recover.

Senator Kerry is a passionate advocate for small businesses, which are -- as he never ceases to point out -- the lifeblood of the nation's economy, providing half of the jobs in this country and more than half of the newly-created jobs. Quite simply, whatever threatens the health of small businesses threatens communities and threatens our national economy. As chair of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Senator Kerry has worked tirelessly to improve and streamline the processes by which aid reaches small businesses after a disaster, and convened hearings such as this one to evaluate the mechanisms in place, to investigate problems such as the failures after Katrina, and to determine the improvements that still need to be made.

For anyone who has been concerned about what the federal government did or didn't do after Katrina, FEMA isn't the only agency that people count on to help them after a disaster; the Small Business Administration's role is vital to the economic survival of a community, and hearings like this one go to the heart of concerns about whether the government is prepared to do its part for the people who are counting on it to be there. Senator Kerry emphasizes however that this is not intended as a "gotcha" hearing, but as an opportunity to learn from mistakes and to look at what is done right as well as what has gone wrong -- contrasting the slow and inadequate response after Katrina with the rapid response to the recent disastrous fire in Uxbridge, MA, for example.

Here we present Senator Kerry's opening remarks, which you can also read in the transcript below.

We’re here today to take a close look at the SBA’s Disaster Assistance Program. Obviously, this program serves as the Federal government’s primary source of long term financial assistance to small businesses that have been hit by a disaster of one kind or another.

We became all too familiar a couple years ago with the problems of the lack of adequate planning, the lack of adequate staffing, and other kinds of problems that accompanied the massive failure of delivery of services across the board in the wake of Katrina. And that taught us something. I think a lot of people, however, are unaware of how frequently the SBA does respond to various disasters around the country, some small, some large. And in fact, the SBA’s Disaster Assistance program plays an integral role in rebuilding homes and towns, businesses in communities all across the country.

My hometown – not hometown personally, but in my home state - Uxbridge – recently, just over this weekend experienced a serious mill fire, and some 135 homes and businesses were destroyed, a lot of damage done, some 300 jobs plus lost, and this mill had become a major magnet, if you will, for business in this community that’s been hurt over the last years by businesses going abroad and the transition of our economy anyway. So SBA stepped in, and I want to thank Administrator Preston for a fast response of the Agency. Agency personnel were on the spot Sunday afternoon for a fire that occurred on Saturday, they did their evaluation, and by Monday we had a designation and were able to move. And that’s terrific. That’s an important message to send to people, that’s the way it ought to work.

Not every disaster can receive or does receive the same kind of response, and certainly there are some where we haven’t seen that. Next month marks the two-year anniversary of the most devastating natural disaster that we know of in the history of this country. The impact of Hurricane Katrina was nothing less than catastrophic on the state of Louisiana and on surrounding communities and Mississippi also. Thousands were killed, hundreds of thousands were displaced, and many of them are still struggling to recover from the impact of that.

At every step during the response and recovery process, the federal government was shown to be behind the process, unprepared and unable to respond. And I want to emphasize this is not Administrator Preston’s watch. He came in to try to clean up some of this, and I think he’s done an admirable job of trying to tackle a lot of that.

But at no agency was the lack of preparedness more evident, or incompetent, frankly, than what happened within the SBA. Insufficient staffing, slow response, lack of coordination, lack of leadership, lack of vision and inadequate processing system led to the agency’s absolute failure to respond to the needs of Gulf Coast applicants.

Nearly eight months after the storms hit—Mr. Preston’s predecessor resigned, leaving an enormous mess to clean up, frankly. On that day, more than 31,000 loan applications remained unprocessed and just 10 percent of the money that was approved for disaster victims had actually been disbursed.

[Editor's note: Today's post is by guest blogger KarynNJ.]

Today, Senator Kerry took to the floor of the Senate and told the truth about which party has been trying to prevent the Congress from accomplishing any of its goals. The Republican echo chamber has been claiming that the current Congress, where Democrats lead both houses, has accomplished little. They seem to have the 110th Congress confused with the Republican Congress, which shut down the government in a fight with President Clinton.

Senator Kerry spoke of the historic nature of the Democratic victories in 2006 and how they demonstrated what the country wanted done. He listed some of the legislation that has been passed in the last six months on these issues -- things like increasing the minimum wage, raising the fuel efficiency standards for the first time in 20 years, correcting the failed policy in Iraq, improving ethics and lobbying reform, improving care and pay for the troops, and funding stem cell research. This sure sounds like a productive Congress to me.

Iraq. Iran. While those two countries have dominated the news and our government's attention, tensions and hazards have been festering in Pakistan, while our backs were turned. John Kerry has been one of the strongest voices calling for the Bush Administration to wake up to the looming threats there.

One of our most important allies in the fight against terrorism, Pakistan is beset with problems that bode ill for both Pakistan and U.S. security: political instability, growing Muslim extremism, and lawlessness in what are known as the tribal regions, which both Al Qaeda and the Taliban have been using as staging areas to gather their forces and launch attacks. John Kerry has been warning for months of the threats in Pakistan.

Yesterday, Senator Kerry convened and chaired a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the Pakistan crisis and the Bush Administration's plans to avert disaster in that volatile environment, calling this "a pivotal moment in Pakistan." The key testimony on the Administration's outlook came from Nicholas Burns, Undersecretary for Political Affairs at the State Department, introduced by JK as "the third ranking official at the State Department,with oversight responsibility for U.S. policy throughout the world."

We at KerryVision feel that this is a very important issue and one on which we should all know more about what is happening and what is at stake, and so we plan to bring you the entire hearing in a series of posts over the next few days. Here we present Senator Kerry's opening statement, in which he succinctly lays out the key issues.

President Bush's speech yesterday made heavy use of the words "Al Qaeda" and "terror" in an effort to play on people's fears and increase confusion about what is going on in Iraq. According to the President's version of reality, we are in Iraq to fight "Al Qaeda in Iraq", an organization that didn't exist before the US invasion of Iraq and whose relationship -- if any -- to the original Al Qaeda is quite murky. Meanwhile, as NPR explains in a recent special report , the National Intelligence Estimate confirms that the real Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden's organization, has been building up its strength along the Afghan-Pakistan border for the last year while the US continues to pour money and troops into the growing chaos of Iraq.

In a rebuttal following the President's speech, Senators Kerry and Reed pointed out that while Al Qaeda is a serious concern, it is only a small part of the problem we face in Iraq: other groups are responsible for the overwhelming majority of the violence there. Moreover, the fact that there was never any Al Qaeda-affiliated group of any kind in Iraq before the US invaded gives the lie to the notion that we went into Iraq to fight Al Qaeda.

Meanwhile, the ongoing US presence in Iraq gives a tremendous boost to Al Qaeda's recruitment efforts. Senator Kerry noted that the legislation he and others have proposed to begin the withdrawal of US troops specifically allows the President discretion to maintain whatever personnel is needed to pursue Al Qaeda; he argued, however, that this would be handled more effectively through special operations units. He pointed out that "Al-Qaeda gets stronger because we're there, Mr. President, not weaker. And if we begin to shift this responsibility to the Iraqis, most of the experts will tell you, the Iraqis do not want al-Qaeda in Iraq. And if we begin to reduce our footprint, I'm confident the Iraqis will begin to reduce the al-Qaeda footprint."

Ever since the bloody raid by government troops on the Red Mosque in Islamabad earlier this month, Pakistan has been much in the news. The situation there has been serious for some time, but it has been growing more dire by the day, as strands of the crisis begin to weave together. The thriving Taliban resurgence (confirmed by the NIE report released July 17) in North Waziristan, along the Afghan-Pakistan border, has sparked fresh violence and deaths as Taliban forces react to the Red Mosque incident by rejecting nascent peace accords with the government and renewing their attacks on President Musharraf's troops. The pro-democracy riots in Lahore and other cities that followed the President’s suspension of the nation’s Chief Justice (reinstated by the Supreme Court last Friday, in a direct challenge to Musharraf's authority) and the uncertainty surrounding upcoming elections add to the popular dissatisfaction with Musharraf's government and the unrest and violence threatening the stability of one of our most essential allies in the region.

Senator Kerry touches on these issues comprehensively in this clip from his June 20 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the nomination of Anne Woods Patterson who is currently serving as our ambassador to Pakistan.

JK outlines the situation gravely and clearly, and stresses the necessity of U.S. demand for accountability from Pakistan in exchange for our political, military and financial support. He then asks Ms. Patterson the key question -- is it possible for Musharraf, whose government is our ally, to maintain control of a situation spiralling out of control? That question remains and becomes more relevant with every life that is lost, in border fighting, in civil unrest, and in clashes involving religious extremists. JK notes ruefully that Islam is at heart a "moderate and tolerant religion" that has been distorted by extremists.

JK has been warning of the dangers of the border regions of Pakistan as a safe haven for al-Qaeda forces (probably including Osama bin Laden) since 2004 and has not faltered in his attention to dangerous developments there. He has been consistent ever since Tora Bora in his insistence that by concentrating our forces in Iraq, we are deploying them ineffectively if we are to achieve our goal of thwarting al-Qaeda. Yesterday, he posted at The Hill's Congress Blog that tomorrow he will be chairing a SFRC hearing tomorrow "to question Undersecretary for Political Affairs Nick Burns about the administration’s plan for Pakistan — and help push the debate about how we can successfully reengage in the fight there." (You can watch a livestream of the Wednesday hearing at 2:15.)

Jon Stewart thinks so, anyway.

OK, maybe not. Mr. Vick, like anyone else indicted in a federal crime, has the right to a fair trial.

But ...

Should this man be permitted to continue to play in the NFL, to be cheered on by all of Atlanta, and to be held up as a role model for young children? The evidence against Mr. Vick is overwhelming. An 18 page indictment details the killing of animals and the money that was involved, and reports from the investigation describe dead, tortured animals, a dog fighting pit, bloody carpets, 66 dogs at his residence, and four eye witnesses. With the massive amount of evidence against him, isn't suspension from the NFL the least that should happen until his trial is held? It's commonplace to suspend people from their jobs pending trial. It happens to cops all the time. In this case, the investigation has been completed, and the U.S. District Court in Richmond has returned an indictment detailing Mr. Vick's alleged involvement in this travesty. Here are a couple excerpts.

I say put the jerseys in a drawer, stop the Nike ads, and keep him away from training camp. Let his lawyers push for the soonest trial date they can. Hell, he's got a ton of money, maybe he can use some of his dog fighting winnings to get a really great lawyer. But to allow him to play in the NFL, given what's known, is outrageous. For now, the only reason to see Mr. Vick on TV on Sunday afternoons is for coverage of court proceedings.

Senate Democrats forced an all-night debate on the Iraq War last night, hoping that forcing Republicans to go on the record would push them to support an Iraq policy that makes sense. At about 5:40 this morning, John Kerry delivered a powerful speech debunking the fallacies on which arguments for the war rely -- such as the belief that Al Qaeda would be empowered by our leaving Iraq, when the truth is that it is our presence there that is helping Al Qaeda to gain a firmer foothold --, illuminating the issues that underlie the ethnic strife and setting out a sensible way forward in Iraq. We at KerryVision are pleased to be able to present this speech in its entirety.

Quite clear.

The vote failed 52-47, short of 60 votes needed for passage. Senator Kerry has advocated a deadline for troop redeployment since last June, when he introduced legislation with Senator Feingold to set a firm date to bring American troops home. JK made the following statement today after the debate concluded on the Levin-Reed-Kerry amendment to set a deadline for troop redeployment from Iraq.

"Today a few Republican Senators chose to stand with their President over voting for a policy for our troops that honors their service and sacrifice," Senator Kerry said. "How much longer will some in this Congress fail to vote their conscience and do what’s right to bring about change in Iraq? No number of Republican filibusters and politically motivated votes change this fact: without real deadlines to force Iraqis to compromise, they will not compromise. No American soldier should die for Iraqi unwillingness to solve their differences. Again a majority in Congress has spoken, and we will not rest until we have a policy that sets a deadline to bring our troops home."

Senate Republicans yesterday treated CSPAN viewers to a double mystery. First the whodunnit: A senator from Oklahoma took the lead in blocking Senate Bill 163, but since Senator DeMint spoke for him, offering only the cryptic utterance "On behalf of the Senator from Oklahoma, I object," we're left to wonder who the man in the shadows was: Inhofe or Coburn?

Then there's the far more puzzling whydunnit. Everyone who's watched CSPAN as much as we have knows that the Senate moves in mysterious ways, but why anyone would want to block improvements in aid to small businesses after Katrina-like disasters -- improvements that will reduce bureaucratic red tape, make it easier for private loans to help small businesses stay on their feet, and help save local economies after a disaster -- is beyond us. Whichever Republicans are behind this, they should put their reasons (assuming they have some) out on the table where we all could get a good look at them.

Senator Kerry spoke on the Senate floor yesterday to counter the mystery objection to the Small Business Disaster Response and Loan Improvements Act, S. 163. You can view the entire speech (only about 10 minutes long) on John Kerry's Senate site, but we have a couple of clips for you here.

Senator Kerry explained how Hurricane Katrina showed us the special vulnerabilities of small businesses after a disaster, and the urgent need to reform the programs for assisting them.

Senator Kerry must be feeling a sense of deja vu this week, as the Senate once again debates whether to say "Enough!" to the Bush Administration's open-ended escalation of US military involvement in Iraq. In a powerful speech on the Senate floor yesterday, Senator Kerry reminded us of the consequences of current US policy and once again made his case for a profound change of course.

In this first of five clips, Senator Kerry points out that the Administration's fixation on Iraq has given Al Qaeda the opportunity to regroup, find safe harbor in Pakistan, and establish itself as stronger than ever -- and that our presence in Iraq is Al Qaeda's best fundraising and recruitment tool. He asks do we want to continue playing into Al Qaeda's hands with our broken Iraq policy, or do we want a strategy that will improve security for Iraq and for the US?

Many Republicans have complained this week that there's no need to debate Iraq policy now; they prefer to wait for the Bush Administration's report in September. Senator Kerry points out the irresponsibility of continuing to let people die when the writing is already on the wall.

In 1971, John Kerry asked his famous question "How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?" He never thought he would have to ask the same question again, or that the US government would seem to have learned so little in the meantime. The time has come to change our policy on a war "that is being prosecuted not for a winning strategy, but for a refusal to accept reality."

But can the Dems convince them to translate that support into votes?

It's pretty obvious if you're following the action on C-Span, that most of the Republicans in the Senate support the war before the troops.

They won't vote to allow our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan to spend a decent amount of time at home with their families between deployments. They can't do that and still keep Bush's war going, so they choose to support George Bush over the troops.

They won't vote to make Bush change his failed strategy, and they won't vote for, or even speak publicly about a policy change that requires what everyone knows we need, which is a diplomatic effort that will allow us to change course.

Supporting the troops means getting the policy right. The Senate Republicans, most of them, anyway, either don't have the nerve or the inclination to do that.

As JK explains to Chris Matthews on Hardball, what the Republicans say in private and how they vote on the Senate floor are two different things.

Call them and tell the Senate Republicans to end this immoral war and bring our troops home.

He may not be much of a reader but President Bush is pretty good with a pen. He's attached signing statements to 1100 laws, as the Boston Globe notes, "more than all previous presidents combined".

Senator Kerry has joined Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) in support of the "Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2007", which will seek to curb and to roll back the Presidents abuse of power.

Senator Kerry spoke of Bush's fondness for the pen in his Senate floor speech during the Alito fillibuster in January, 2006.

On Saturday, July 7, 2007, Senator Kerry introduced his Afghanistan Sense of the Senate Resolution: "Calling for the strengthening of the efforts of the United States to defeat the Taliban and terrorist networks in Afghanistan."

This is further proof that JK doesn't EVER give up on what he knows is right and what has to be done to protect our nation's safety and honor. As you will see in this clip from his Faneuil Hall "Real Security" speech on September 9, 2006, he laid out the facts almost a year ago on the real terror threat and where we ought to be focusing our intelligence, our expert forces and our reconstruction efforts. JK is blisteringly clear in this speech about just how wrong our policy has been in ignoring the Taliban threat, but he finishes by insisting that the real solution MUST include real aid to the elected government in Kabul so that they, without the Taliban, can rebuild their country.

In May, Sen. Kerry voted against a supplemental spending bill to give Mr. Bush another blank check for his war in Iraq. Watch as Sen. Kerry explains why the supplemental was wrong, and what provisions we need to put in a defense authorization bill.

From prepared remarks:

Mr. President, I would like to speak about the supplemental funding bill for Iraq. I will oppose this legislation for the simple reason that it does nothing to force the President to change his failed policy in Iraq. This bill does not provide a strategy worthy of our soldiers' sacrifice. Instead, it permits more of the same - a strategy that relies on sending American troops into the alleys and back roads of Iraq to referee a deadly civil war. Instead of the same misguided strategy, we could truly show support for our troops by getting the policy right. We could show support for our troops by setting a deadline to force Iraqis to stand up for their own country. We could show support by bringing our troops home - not with meaningless benchmarks and blank check waivers for this President.