John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding that Senator Cantwell wants to preserve a component of that, so I would, on behalf of Senator Cantwell, yield myself 5 minutes at this time.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the comments of our friend from Alabama, Senator Sessions, regarding his amendment to strike section 37 of the patent reform bill, but I disagree with him on substantive terms, and I ask our colleagues to look carefully at the substance of this amendment and the importance of this amendment with respect to precedent not for one company from Massachusetts or for one entity but for companies all over the country and for the application of patent law as it ought to be applied. The only thing section 37 does--the only thing--is it codifies what a Federal district court has already said and implements what the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is already doing. There is no breaking of new ground here. This is codifying a Federal district court, codifying what the Patent Office has done, and, in fact, codifying common sense. It is putting into effect what is the right decision with respect to how we treat patents in our country. Section 37 is, in fact, a very important clarification of a currently confusing deadline for filing patent term extension applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Frankly, this is a clarification, I would say to the Senator from Alabama, that benefits everybody in the country. In fact, this is a clarification which has already been put into effect for other types of patents that were once upon a time treated with the same anomaly. They rectified that. They haven't rectified it with respect to this particular section of patent law. So all we are doing is conforming to appropriate law, conforming to the standards the Patent Office applies, and conforming for all companies in the country, for any company that might be affected similarly. If this were a bailout for a single firm or a pharmaceutical company, as some have tried to suggest it might be, why in the world did a similar provision previously get reported out of the Senate Judiciary Committee by a vote of 14 to 2? How in the world could this provision have then passed the House of Representatives as it did? And why would many House Republicans have supported it as they did? The answer is very simple: Because it is the right thing to do under the law and under the common sense of how we want patents treated in the filing process. The law as currently written, frankly, was being wrongly applied by the Patent and Trademark Office. And you don't have to take my word for that; that is what a Federal court has said on more than one occasion. Each time, the court has ruled that it was the Patent and Trademark Office, not an individual firm called WilmerHale or Medicines Company-- not those two--that made a mistake. Let me make that very clear so the record is as clear as it can be. The current law as it is written says that ``to obtain an extension of the term of a patent under this section, the owner of record of the patent or its agent shall submit an application to the Director. . . . Such an application may be only submitted within the sixty-day period beginning on the date the product received permission'' under the appropriate provision of law. Now, the FDA reasonably interprets this language to mean that if something is received after the close of business on a given business day, it is deemed to be received the next business day. Under this interpretation, the filing by the Medicines Company was indisputably timely. So my colleagues should not come to the floor and take away from entities that are trying to compete and be in the marketplace over some technicality: the suggestion that because something was filed electronically on a particular given day at 5 o'clock in the afternoon when people had gone home--they weren't open--that somehow they deem that not to have been appropriately filed. But rather than accept that commonsense interpretation, the Patent and Trademark Office told the Medicines Company it was late. They just decided that. They said: You are late, despite the fact that interpretation contradicted the same-business-day rule the FDA uses when interpreting the very same statute. So as a result, the issue went to court, and guess what. The court told the PTO it was wrong. A Federal judge found that the Patent Office and FDA had been applying inconsistent interpretations of the exact same statutory language in the Hatch-Waxman Act. The FDA uses one interpretation that has the effect of extending its own internal deadlines, but the PTO insisted on using a different interpretation. The result was a ``heads I win, tails you lose.''

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

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, regarding the parliamentary situation, how much time remains for Senator Cantwell?

Mr. KERRY. For companies investing in innovative medicines, the court found that the PTO failed to provide any plausible explanation for this inconsistent approach. It further found that the PTO's interpretation had the effect of depriving applicants of a portion of their time for filing an application. After considering all the relevant factors, the court adopted the FDA's interpretation. So the court told the PTO that they were wrong and it was they, and not the Medicines Company, who made a mistake. So this is not an earmark. It isn't, as Senator Sessions contends, a single-company bailout. It is a codification of a court ruling. It is a clarification. It is common sense. It puts a sensible court decision into legislative language, and it is legislative language that applies to all companies across the country equally. It doesn't single out any particular company but amends the patent law for the benefit of all applicants. I ask my colleagues to oppose the Sessions amendment on the merits. More importantly, we need to move forward with this important bill on which Chairman Leahy and Senator Grassley have worked so hard. Passing the Sessions amendment would stop that. It would require a House-Senate conference on the bill, and it would at best seriously delay and at worst make it impossible to exact patent reform during this Congress. So this is, on the merits, for all companies. This is common sense. This is current law. This is current practice. So I ask my colleagues accordingly to vote appropriately. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 4 p.m. the Senate proceed to the votes in relation to the amendments and passage of H.R. 1249, the America Invents Act, with all other provisions of the previous order remaining in effect; that the final 10 minutes of debate be equally divided between the chairman and ranking member of the Judiciary Committee or their designees, with the chairman controlling the final 5 minutes; further, that there be 4 minutes equally divided between proponents and opponents prior to each vote.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of Senator Cantwell's time.

Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 595

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is my pleasure but also a sad moment for members of the Foreign Relations Committee to take this time to celebrate the service of and also to salute the retirement of one of the Senate's great staffers: Ed Levine. Ed is retiring this week after a remarkable 35 years of service to the Senate--a lot longer than most Senators get to serve and that most staff up here have the courage to hang in there and serve. In his decades of service, Ed has provided wise and perceptive counsel to two committees, to many Members, and most recently to the Foreign Relations Committee. His deep knowledge of foreign policy and his remarkable sense of this institution are truly going to be missed and I mean missed enormously. He grew up and he went to school here in Washington, DC, before he headed off to Berkeley and then later to Yale. When he was a young man here in this community, he used to ride the streetcar down to Georgia Avenue, where he would watch the Senators play at Griffith Stadium. For those who are too young to remember, there actually was a baseball team called the Senators once upon a time. He did not watch folks here playing at Griffith Stadium. But when the Washington Senators left for good to become the Texas Rangers, I have to reckon that Ed just decided that the U.S. Senators were the only game left in town, and he has been here ever since. He first came to the Senate in 1976. He joined the Select Committee on Intelligence back then--literally right after it was established. It was a historic moment. Those who remember their history of the 1970s remember that was a time of great consternation about the covert activities of the CIA. The activities and the oversight of the CIA became a major national issue and concern. So it was a historic moment when the Senate was reasserting its constitutional responsibility to provide oversight. Ed spent the next 20 years overseeing some of the Nation's most sensitive programs and some of its most closely guarded secrets. He was trusted with some of the most secret information of our country because he never had anything but the interests of our country and the security of the Nation foremost in his mind. I think that is also borne out in the fact that through the course of his career, he worked for Members of both sides of the aisle while he was on the Intelligence Committee. He served on that committee as the personal representative of Republican Senator Clifford Case and then Republican Senator David Durenberger, and then later for Democratic Senators Howard Metzenbaum and Chuck Robb. His work for the Intelligence Committee exemplified a standard of public service that puts the fulfillment of the Senate's constitutional duties above any other partisan concerns. For him, there never was a party issue, Republican or Democrat, or an ideological issue, liberal or conservative. It was: What are the best interests of the United States of America and how do we protect its security? He has applied that very same approach to his work on the Foreign Relations Committee, where I have had the privilege of watching him work over the course of the 26 years I have been here. He worked mostly previously for now-Vice President Biden. A few days ago, we held a business meeting at the Foreign Relations Committee, and it was characteristic of Ed's diligence in representing the interests of country above party that Senator Lugar, the ranking member of the committee, and who has served with him for a long time, took time to acknowledge his service and to note how constructively he had worked with the Republican counterparts on the committee over these many years. We saw that in large measure last year when we considered the New START treaty, in which Ed played an integral role. You know, I might mention to colleagues, when Vice President Biden was Senator Biden and chairman of the committee, he coined a nickname for Ed. He called him ``Fast Eddie.'' And the irony of that for all of us who know him is that Ed does not do ``fast.'' He is one of the most careful and deliberate thinkers on our staff, and that is one of the things people valued in him the most. It was never a hip shot. It was always based on thinking, research, experience, and knowledge. His knowledge of arms control, I may say, is encyclopedic. During the New START debate, we had a war room set up one floor below this in the Foreign Relations Committee room, with dozens of experts from the various departments of our government, and stacks of briefing books, and instant computer linkage to the State Department, to the Defense Department, Intelligence, and so forth, but often when we had a question, all we had to do was turn to Ed and he would know the answer from right up here in his head, from his experience. That is not surprising, given how many treaties Ed has helped this body to consider during his career. He worked on the INF Treaty, on the START I treaty, on the START II treaty, on the Chemical Weapons Convention, on the Convention on Conventional Weapons. I went up to him a moment ago. I saw he was wearing a tie with a sword being beaten into plowshares, and he reminded me that came from the mutual and balanced force reduction treaty, which he said was the only thing they could agree on, but he is proudly wearing it today. What all of this adds up to is that Ed spent a great chunk of his life doing his best to help the Senate protect our Nation from the most dangerous weapons that ever existed. He did it with such professionalism, even, I might add, when faced with personal loss, as when his father died last year right during the consideration of the treaty, but it did not stop Ed from doing his duty. All of his Senate service is a real testament to his character. That he earned the respect from the Members he served and the staff he worked with is a testament to his great skill and knowledge. And that he has done so for so many years is a testament to his sense of public citizenship and his love of country. So, Ed, we thank you, all the Members of the Senate, for your service. We will miss you in the Senate. I wish you personally the best in all of your future endeavors. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator, and I appreciate it. I ask the Senator this: As ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against the debt limit--both Republicans and Democrats alike--is it not true that in those situations, those votes did not hold the Nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility, as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time? Is that not true?

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be recognized to complete my comments.

Mr. KERRY. Is there a time limit?

Mr. KERRY. I ask to be informed when I have 5 minutes remaining. Mr. President, when Harry Truman served in the seat Senator McCaskill of Missouri holds today, he used to sit back over there, in back of the row where a lot of the newer Senators sit. He, from that vantage point, would often watch the great debates on the New Deal. He listened long into the night. He used to frequently write home to his wife Bess. One late night after a long debate, he wrote about his experience of sitting in the Senate--this was early on--and of the awe he felt sitting in this institution and looking across at his colleagues, I assume imagining the ghosts of Calhoun and Clay and other great Senators. He wrote to his wife, and he said: I sit here in the Senate looking at this institution and at my colleagues and I pinch myself and I say, ``How the hell did I get here?'' A number of months later, it was very late at night, and he was again sitting there, and he wrote to his wife, again watching the debate and looking across at his colleagues, and he wrote to her and said, ``I ask myself, how the hell did they get here?'' Anyway, I suspect at this moment in America a lot of Americans are looking at the Senate, at the Congress, and they are asking a similar question, wondering whether we get it. I have enormous respect for this institution. I still believe in the phrase ``the world's greatest deliberative body,'' which has, unfortunately, become a punch line in these days, but when we are bipartisan and serious is still a true description, still possible when we rise to the moment. I have seen the Senate over the course of 26 years in those moments, as have other colleagues here. I have seen it with Ted Kennedy and Bob Dole and so many others. I have seen what can be accomplished here. Regrettably, today, our allies and our enemies abroad and our friends here at home--the American citizen--are watching with either alarm or, in the case of our enemies, delight as they question America's leadership. Some abroad have even suggested this is a sign, a moment of American decline. So even without default, believe me, just the absence of decision and the presence of partisan chaos--they are running up a huge cost for this country. The other day, I received a letter from 20 mayors from Massachusetts. The letter states: The time to compromise and resolve this issue is now. They complained that their communities were under the microscope from Moody's because we had not gotten our acts together here in Washington. Their letter was honest and eloquent. And, frankly, it should not be so difficult for their warnings and their example to be heeded in the Congress. The mayors' call for compromise, frankly, should not be so difficult. The call for compromise by the American people ought to be listened to and acted on and in very short order. I have served in the majority and I have served in the minority since I have been here. I have served with Republican Presidents, Democratic Presidents, in both situations, when we are in the minority and in the majority. I have cast tough votes in times of divided government, under Republican and Democratic Presidents, from Reagan to Obama, and I have never seen the governing process so broken because one faction of one side has made compromise--the essence of democracy and the bedrock of our governing system--not just a dirty word but, in their view, a form of treason. The warnings of mayors were echoed yesterday by the leaders of our financial industry. Yesterday, CEOs of major financial institutions wrote: Our economic recovery remains very fragile. A default on our Nation's obligations, or a downgrade-- Just a downgrade-- of America's credit rating, would have an enormous impact on Americans and on investor confidence--raising interest rates for everyone who borrows, undermining the value of the Dollar, and affecting stock and bond markets--and, therefore, dramatically worsening our Nation's already difficult economic circumstances. Those are their words. Notwithstanding that, we continue to see our own well-being at risk. This is one of those times where it is not cliche and it is not hyperbole to say that the whole world is watching, because the whole world has something at stake in what we do or do not do. For the world, there are serious consequences in that. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I have heard from officials all over the world and global business leaders, and the message is always the same. They are watching in amazement, in puzzlement, and horror at what is going on in Washington. Our friends and allies, whose economic fortunes and economies are linked to our own, doubt us, and they are worrying about the impact of our dysfunction on their economies. Our economic rivals--believe me, our economic rivals--are laughing all the way to the bank. At a time of global economic uncertainty, we should absolutely not be adding to that uncertainty by failing to resolve our debt crisis. The International Monetary Fund is warning that actions still need to be taken to stave off contagion from Europe's sovereign debt crisis. It is not insignificant that while Harry Reid has been busy trying to find Republicans to join Democrats in a bipartisan solution, Speaker Boehner was exclusively negotiating to end the civil war between the responsible and the unreasonable within the Republican Party. The Speaker negotiated with Republicans to make a bad bill worse. I think the distinction between what has happened in the House and the Senate is a very important one in terms of where Americans are going to find a resolution to this challenge. Here in the Senate, we have been working day and night, talking with Democratic and Republican colleagues across the aisle in order to find a way forward. And for most of us--or at least many of us; certainly, a sufficient number to be able to pass a solution--for them, there are not any preconditions. Everything is on the table. But we are still facing the obstinate, ideological rigidity from House Republicans--House Republicans--who have threatened to take our Nation into default and downgrade the Nation's credit rating and do even more harm to a fragile economy simply to get their way. So what is it that divides us right now? I think a lot of Americans listening to the debate probably have a serious question about: What is the difference between these folks? What is it that divides them? Well, the Boehner plan, which was sent over here, had three fundamental problems in it that Democrats were unwilling to support. First, it would force huge cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid because of the structure and manner of the cuts they were demanding. Second, it included a constitutional amendment provision which required that the constitutional amendment actually be passed within 6 months before the next debt limit could be raised. Because there is no certainty that would happen or could happen, it set up an automatic default. So the Boehner plan was setting up the U.S. Government to go right through this exercise again and have an automatic default. Third, there was a timeframe in the Boehner amendment that required us to go back and visit this in February of next year, which would have meant the minute we come back in September, the entire Congress would have been consumed with the very same thing we have been doing now, which would not give certainty to the marketplace. So it was not politics that prevented us from proceeding forward on the Boehner plan. It was the substance of that plan. The Reid plan, which we are debating right now, which is on the floor, is a plan that because of the Republican insistence on no revenues has no revenues. Many people on our side of the aisle object to that. But we have accepted that is the price we need to pay as a matter of our compromise in order to get out of this crisis. So we have compromised on revenues. It has cuts. All the cuts are cuts the Republicans have already voted for that, again, many of our folks do not like. But they have compromised, our folks, and they have provided the cuts that the Republicans asked for. Because it has a timeframe that goes until after next year, that means we will provide certainty to the marketplace and avoid a downgrade of our credit. The Boehner plan would guarantee a downgrade of our credit. So these are enormous differences. Finally, the Reid plan provides a tight process, a plan that we know is familiar around here. Like the way we deal with military bases, we require votes. The votes have to take place, and we would be required within a very short number of months to deal with America's long-term debt and budget crisis, and people would have an ability to put their cuts on the table. But we would also, we hope, have an opportunity to have revenues. That is the big sticking point here in the Senate. We need to know that if there is a trigger that is used in an automatic way in which money is going to be held back, that money has to be held back in a fair and balanced way. You do not just cut, you also have to have the possibility of revenue. Because if you do not have the possibility of revenue, then the side that only wants to cut can wait for nothing to happen and the cuts take place automatically. There is no threat to them. There is no leverage for them to come to agreement on the other things. That is reasonableness, I believe. I think what we are looking for here is reasonable. It is fair, and it is balanced. The House strategy has been essentially not to negotiate, not to negotiate. We also know there are a lot of misstatements out here. Senator Reid corrected one a moment ago about a deal. In addition to that, we keep hearing people say that there is no plan, that the President does not have a plan, that nothing has been reduced to writing. Well, as Senator Moynihan used to say here: Anybody is entitled to their own opinion, but they are not entitled to their own facts. The fact is, the President put a detailed plan for $4.7 trillion of cuts over 10 years with reductions in defense, and Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, all on the table to find savings in those programs. It is incredible to me to keep hearing people say there is no plan when there has been plan after plan. Chairman of the Budget Committee Conrad has been warning us for years about this. He sought to get a bipartisan deficit commission created by the Senate. It could not happen because the Republicans blocked it. So what happened? President Obama appointed one of his own. It reported back. We still have not dealt with that. Because the votes aren't there to support a simple increase in the debt limit, we've bent over backwards to find a compromise that links the debt limit to commitments on significant deficit reductions. Back in February, the President offered a budget that included more than $1 trillion in deficit reduction. When Republicans said his budget didn't contain enough cuts, he came out with a new proposal two months later which provided a comprehensive, balanced deficit reduction framework to cut spending, bring down our debt and increase confidence in our nation's fiscal strength. This framework would have reduced the deficit by $4 trillion in 12 years or less and reductions would have been phased in over time to protect and strengthen our economic recovery and the recovering labor market. It contained a balanced approach to bringing down our deficit, with three dollars of spending cuts and interest savings for every one dollar from tax reform that contributes to deficit reduction. It called for $770 billion in non- security discretionary spending cuts, $400 billion security spending cuts, $489 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings, $360 billion in other mandatory savings, and $1 trillion from tax reform. How could I repeat this proposal if it hadn't been written down? After that was rejected, in his negotiations with the Speaker, the President put an unprecedented $ 4.7 trillion dollars of deficit reduction on the table, including painful cuts to programs millions of working Americans depend on, even cuts we Democrats hate as a matter of principle--and the President offered them along with closing wasteful corporate tax loopholes in order to achieve ``shared sacrifice.'' I believe it would have had significant support in the Senate--instead, House Republicans rejected it and walked away from the process. The so-called ``Gang of Six'' in the Senate worked for months to strike a compromise that was balanced as well--it too could have won significant backing here in the Senate and was applauded by Senators as ideologically and philosophically different as me and the conservative senator from Oklahoma, Tom Coburn. For House Republicans, this too was unacceptable, because they believe there is not a single new revenue or tax savings that can be supported in the entire 72,000 page U.S. Tax Code. Recognizing both the stakes for our country, the danger to the economy, and House Republican intransigence, Majority Leader Harry Reid has now offered approximately $2.2 trillion in deficit reduction without additional revenue, composed of cuts Republicans had previously supported. That too was rejected. The leader's proposal would give our economy the certainty it needs to create jobs today, not 6 months from now and it provides a certain process for Congress to do its work for the next 4 months. Time and time again, I hear those absolutists criticizing the President and majority leader's handling of the situation. They ask what our plan is? Well, take your pick--we have offered compromise after compromise and every time they have said no. No, the House Republicans would rather spend their time negotiating with themselves and criticizing other proposals than negotiating with Democrats or trying to show that they are willing to compromise. Here in the Senate, Senator McConnell offered a reasonable compromise that would get us past this hurdle. He proposed a path forward in good faith as way to provide stability for our economy and not have this saga continue. What did House Republicans do? They walked away from even a Republican proposal to ensure our nation didn't default and our economy wasn't hurt. So what do House Republicans want? They want legislation called the Cut, Cap and Balance Act. It is so extreme that even Paul Ryan's draconian budget wouldn't fit into its limits. A week ago today, the Senate defeated the bad version--cut, cap and balance. This vote made it extremely clear that cut, cap and balance did not have a path forward, but repeatedly House Republicans push for it even though it has already failed in the Senate and the President threatened to veto it. So when the talk of the ``grand bargain'' failed, what did the House Republicans do? They further entrench themselves in an extremist position and turn to a new way of passing cut, cap and balance. Have they tried to find a way forward to reaching a real compromise? No, they continue to negotiate among themselves. And their current refusal to negotiate across party lines flies in the face of the very Republican principles they have espoused. Why do we oppose the Boehner plan? Because the experts have said that Boehner's plan could trigger many of the consequences as default itself--including a surge in interest rates that will hurt every American with a mortgage, a student loan, a car loan, or a credit card--because it would make passage of a balanced budget amendment a condition for increasing the debt ceiling in 6 months. In other words-- automatic default if they don't get their way. Since there is not two- thirds support in the House and Senate for this amendment, it guarantees default. Bruce Bartlett, a former economic adviser to President Reagan said: This is quite possibly the stupidest Constitutional amendment that I think I have ever seen. It looks like it was drafted by a couple of interns on the back of a napkin. Mr. President, that is President Reagan's adviser. Just the other day, my friend and colleague Senator McCain stated that thinking a balanced budget amendment can pass--``is worse than foolish.'' He went to say: That is not fair to the American people to hold out and say we will not agree to raising the debt limit until we pass a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It is unfair. It is bizarrro. We can't do this. We can't keep going down this road. This stalemate cannot stand. It is time to for us reach across the aisle. Senator Reid's plan tries to do that. It doesn't touch the Republican holy grail of revenues. Not a dime. And 100 percent of the spending cuts in Senator Reid's deficit reduction plan were supported by Republicans. They were included in proposals from Speaker Boehner's plan, House Majority Leader Cantor, and House Budget Committee Chairman Ryan. Just last night, Senator Reid amended his plan to include Senator McConnell's provision to give the President the authority to increase the debt limit in steps. This gives Members of Congress the chance to register disapproval for increases in the debt limit. This is yet another compromise by the Democrats. So I think there has been a great effort by Democrats to make changes to deal with the Republican objections. I would ask, what is the single Republican concession? What is it they have given as a matter of compromise? Nobody can tell you that because there has not been one. In fairness, in the Gang of 6, a great group of Republicans joined with Democrats, and they did make a concession, and they took political risks. They went out and said: Yes, there have to be cuts, but there also have to be revenues. I applaud those Republicans who joined in that effort. That is what we need to find here now. That is the way we are going to make the difference here. It is the place to start a compromise but it takes two sides to compromise. And it takes both Houses of Congress to pass a bill. It shouldn't be this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job under the Constitution and preserve the credit rating and reputation of the most powerful nation on Earth. And it doesn't take an amendment to the Constitution for us to balance the budget either. It takes the courage of our convictions. We have been here before. In the 1990s, our economy was faltering because deficits and debt were freezing capital. We had to send a signal to the market that we were capable of being fiscally responsible. We did just that and as result we saw the longest economic expansion in history, created over 22 million jobs, and generated unprecedented wealth in America, with every income bracket rising. But we did it by making tough choices. We cast tough votes and some Senators even lost their seats but they committed the country to a path of discipline that helped unleash the productive potential of the American people. Working with Republicans, we came up with a budget framework that put our Nation on track to be debt free by 2012 for the first time since Andrew Jackson's administration. It didn't take a constitutional amendment--it took courage. Mr. President, we can do that again--if we get real. If we get serious. There is a bipartisan consensus just waiting to lift our country and our future if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real. If we are willing to stop talking past each other, to stop substituting sound bites for substance. If we are willing finally to pull ourselves out of ideological cement that has been mixed over in the House. I believe we can compromise. I think the only place to resolve this crisis is in compromise. I believe I have additional time, but I wanted to know where I am with time. I will wrap up very shortly. As we know, it takes both Houses to pass a bill. It should not be this difficult for Congress to do its most fundamental job under the Constitution. It does not take an amendment to the Constitution to balance the budget. How could I say that? Because in the 1990s, we balanced the budget. We created 23 million new jobs. We raised the income of everybody in America. And the fact is we did what was necessary to put us on a track to pay down the debt of our country by 2012. We sent a signal to the marketplace. We can do this again if we get real, if we get serious. I believe there is a bipartisan consensus here in the Senate waiting to lift our country and our future, if Senators are willing to sit down and forge it and make it real, if we stop talking past each other. The world's most deliberative body could become that again. But the reason it is not viewed as that today is not that the institution itself has failed; it is not that it cannot be deliberative. It is because the people in it have not yet decided to live in the tradition of those predecessors who earned the reputation for this institution. It is because, unlike the years when I first came here in the 1980s, some have decided to use this institution for a 24/7 365-days-a-year campaign, to make everything that happens here the prisoner of ideology and politics rather than the instrument of debate and decision. I think it would do us good to remember that until recent history, this institution has been the birthplace of compromise and delivered some of the great legislative achievements that have reshaped our Nation out of compromise, bipartisan compromises here in the Senate-- the passage of the Social Security Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1969, the creation of Medicare in 1965, Social Security reforms of 1983. We all know that during the Constitutional Convention, Roger Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth of Connecticut developed a bicameral legislative structure that broke a deadlock, and it created--it is in the Constitution. It is why we have a Senate and a House today: compromise. Everyone who remembers the history books remembers the Compromise of 1850 drafted by Henry Clay that diffused a 4-year confrontation between the slave States of the South and the free States of the North. Even in our most difficult moments, we have been able to find a way to compromise. In the end, it is people who define this place. It is we Senators. And in my conversations with colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I am convinced there are plenty of people here who are prepared to reach across the aisle and prove that the United States and the U.S. Senate can live up to this moment. I believe that in the next 48 hours the Senate will prove our ability to live up to our constitutional and our personal responsibility. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan.) The Senator from Iowa.

Mr. KERRY. If the Senator will yield, I appreciate what the Senator is saying. First of all, everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now. The problem is, we have to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We have to come to an agreement. Right now, there is not a lot of negotiating going on. I ask the Senator if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous difference between the--a moment ago, the Senator said ``if he had gotten his way.'' The whole point is that everybody knew he wasn't about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote. Today, however, is it not true that we are on the brink of a default, and the absence of negotiation or of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?

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

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it may surprise the Senator--I hope not, and I don't think so--but it might surprise people listening to us to hear from this side of the aisle that a lot of us have enormous respect for what the Senator has been talking about and fighting for and what he has achieved. I might add he is one of those courageous Senators who has come together in the last months working as part of the so-called Gang of 6 to try to bridge the gap and see if we cannot find a way forward. As I listen to him, there is an enormous amount of common sense in the questions he is asking. These are questions all of us need to join in. We need to join into them in a process that allows us to be able to work in a balanced way on the grand bargain, as you call it, the big fix. I ask the Senator, because I think a lot of Americans listening to the debate--and I have been listening on the floor and listening some back in the office--people have to be saying these guys have been talking past each other because we hear things over there that sound reasonable and we hear things on this side that sound reasonable. But people are asking: What is hanging up this process? Why is the entire country being held hostage? I ask my colleague if he would help us kind of bear down on what we need to do. I ask him if it is not fair and accurate to say that the so-called Gang of 6--a terrible name--maybe we can call them G6 or something--but they came together with an understanding that we needed balance in the approach to satisfy both sides and build a critical mass. That balance requires cuts. We have to put the big items--big ticket items on the table, and that means fixing Social Security, reforming it for the long-term; Medicare and Medicaid, which are unsustainable on their current paths; defense, where we have to find a handle on some of the procurement and expenditures. The Senator has joined in this. We have to close some tax loopholes and have tax reform and find some level of revenue at an appropriate ratio that allows us to fix this. That is where the problem has been. There is a group of folks in the House who have insisted no revenue at all. I ask the Senator, isn't it fair to say the Gang of 6 came up with a more balanced approach in which, I believe, the Senate could find a ground of compromise--what Senator Reid has proposed, I believe, has cuts that the Republicans have supported--maybe not quite enough yet and maybe we can negotiate that. (Mr. DURBIN assumed the Chair.)

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator further yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, again--I am trying to help us get out of this predicament where we have a couple days before the United States defaults. Everything the Senator has said is worthy of inquiry. Isn't it true that if we could get--part of the Reid proposal and the Boehner proposal proposes a joint committee that will be structured somewhat like a Base Closing Commission, which will require the Senate and the House to vote in an expeditious fashion on these kinds of proposals, whatever the joint committee proposes, and if the joint committee doesn't succeed in proposing something, hopefully, either the Gang of 6 or the Simpson-Bowles commission will. Isn't the key to resolving this crisis and not defaulting our ability to be able to come together on a sufficient trigger or some sufficient mechanism that guarantees we are actually going to deal with this in a similar fashion to what the Senator is raising?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today too many families are at risk of losing the child care assistance that helps maintain their financial stability and ensure the well-being of their children. That is why I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. Until now, most states were able to maintain their child care assistance programs through the recession due to the additional $2 billion in Federal Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding for 2009 and 2010 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. However, with only a portion of these ARRA funds being continued, and with persistent state budget gaps, many states are forced to scale back child care assistance for families. Some states' waiting lists for subsidized child care are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or plan to stop providing child care assistance to families who are not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, together. Cuts and restrictions in the availability of child care assistance make it harder for parents to afford child care and have forced some parents to leave their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. Children lose access to the stable, good-quality child care that encourages their learning and development and prepares them for school success. And child care programs can find difficulty filling their classrooms, leading them to lay off staff or close their doors entirely. That is wrong and we can do better. Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can cost up to $18,773 annually for full-time care depending on where the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an infant in a child care center was higher than even a year's tuition at some 4-year public colleges. Without assistance, many low-income families can find it impossible to secure child care. For example, in 2007, the median monthly income of families receiving child care assistance was just $16,680 a year. Nearly half, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were single parent households. In these challenging economic times, it is especially important to help low and moderate-income families with their child care costs. The Children First Act which I am introducing today will help address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. It will help--States meet the significant demand for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child care by $500 million for fiscal year 2012, $700 million in 2013, and $750 million in 2014 thru 2021, resulting in an increase of $3.45 billion over 5 years and $7.2 billion over 10 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help and there have been no increases in mandatory' child care funding since 2007. This increased funding will be used to provide approximately 212,000 additional children access to safe and affordable child care as compared to current funding levels. The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards regardless of subsidy type received. This legislation would increase the availability of child care for parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from withholding or reducing cash assistance to parents of a child with children under age thirteen. Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 24,000 children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts families pay more on average than families in all other states for child care, with the average price of full time care in center based settings totaling $18,773 for an infant and $13,158 for a preschooler. This legislation will help lower the waitlist and help our children become more productive citizens. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have endorsed it today, including the including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP, the National Women's Law Center, and the Service Employees International Union, SEIU. These reforms would significantly increase access to stable and affordable child care to low-income families and would make our Nation's children more prepared for school and success later in life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today too many families are at risk of losing the child care assistance that helps maintain their financial stability and ensure the well-being of their children. That is why I am introducing the Children First Act to address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. Until now, most states were able to maintain their child care assistance programs through the recession due to the additional $2 billion in Federal Child Care and Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding for 2009 and 2010 from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA. However, with only a portion of these ARRA funds being continued, and with persistent state budget gaps, many states are forced to scale back child care assistance for families. Some states' waiting lists for subsidized child care are beginning to rise and a few states have stopped or plan to stop providing child care assistance to families who are not receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, TANF, together. Cuts and restrictions in the availability of child care assistance make it harder for parents to afford child care and have forced some parents to leave their jobs and turn to welfare programs for support. Children lose access to the stable, good-quality child care that encourages their learning and development and prepares them for school success. And child care programs can find difficulty filling their classrooms, leading them to lay off staff or close their doors entirely. That is wrong and we can do better. Child care consumes a large portion of family budgets, and can cost up to $18,773 annually for full-time care depending on where the family lives, the type of care, and the age of the child. Child care prices are higher than other household expenses and typically exceed the average amount families spend on food. In 39 States and the District of Columbia, the average annual price for child care for an infant in a child care center was higher than even a year's tuition at some 4-year public colleges. Without assistance, many low-income families can find it impossible to secure child care. For example, in 2007, the median monthly income of families receiving child care assistance was just $16,680 a year. Nearly half, 49 percent, of families receiving child care assistance live below the poverty line and 86 percent of these families were single parent households. In these challenging economic times, it is especially important to help low and moderate-income families with their child care costs. The Children First Act which I am introducing today will help address the growing unmet need for affordable and safe child care. It will help--States meet the significant demand for child care assistance by increasing funding for mandatory child care by $500 million for fiscal year 2012, $700 million in 2013, and $750 million in 2014 thru 2021, resulting in an increase of $3.45 billion over 5 years and $7.2 billion over 10 years. This increase is necessary because only about one in six children eligible for Federal child care assistance receives help and there have been no increases in mandatory' child care funding since 2007. This increased funding will be used to provide approximately 212,000 additional children access to safe and affordable child care as compared to current funding levels. The Children First Act would exclude child care from the definition of TANF assistance so that unemployed families who receive child care assistance will not have it count towards the 5-year time limit for Federal TANF assistance. The legislation would also ensure that the minimum child care health and safety standards required for providers receiving Child Care Development Block Grant, CCDBG, funding also apply to providers who receive funding through TANF. In Massachusetts, all licensed providers are required to the same health and safety standards regardless of subsidy type received. This legislation would increase the availability of child care for parents who are required to work. States are currently prohibited from withholding or reducing assistance to a single parent with children under 6 who does not meet work requirements for reasons related to the unavailability or unsuitability of appropriate, affordable child care arrangements. The Children First Act would prevent States from withholding or reducing cash assistance to parents of a child with children under age thirteen. Enactment of this legislation is incredibly important for my home State of Massachusetts which currently has approximately 24,000 children on a waitlist for child care subsidies. The high cost of child care is the most significant issue facing families currently on the waitlist in Massachusetts. Massachusetts families pay more on average than families in all other states for child care, with the average price of full time care in center based settings totaling $18,773 for an infant and $13,158 for a preschooler. This legislation will help lower the waitlist and help our children become more productive citizens. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Children First Act and who have endorsed it today, including the including the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFSCME, the Children's Defense Fund, CLASP, the National Women's Law Center, and the Service Employees International Union, SEIU. These reforms would significantly increase access to stable and affordable child care to low-income families and would make our Nation's children more prepared for school and success later in life. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to pass this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent I be permitted to proceed as in morning business for about 15 minutes.