John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding that under the order, this is the time for the debate. Is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I reserve my time.

Mr. KERRY. With the consent of the other side, all time will be yielded back. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to say a few words, if I may, about the nominee whom we are about to vote on. I strongly support the nomination of Heather Higginbottom to be the Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget. It has been more than 12 years since Heather first came to work for me in the Senate as a senior legislative assistant, and later she became my legislative director and top policy aide. In all those years on the Hill, I want to assure my colleagues who are thinking about this position that she stood out not just for her policy knowledge and her understanding of the budget and the legislative process but for her ability to work across the aisle. I know a lot of colleagues are anxious to confirm people who come not with partisan intent but with the ability to try to get things done in Washington. Believe me, Heather has that ability. She worked with me and developed my proposal a number of years ago for a constitutional line-item veto--a proposal which now has many bipartisan supporters in the Senate. I also saw firsthand her instinct to put aside ideology and to go after waste, to push for tough-minded budget reforms, all of which protected the taxpayers' interests. She worked with me through seven budget cycles, and I am pleased to say, as many Members remember, we balanced the budget back in those years. So I think she comes with an experience of understanding what the tough choices are that can help to improve our fiscal situation now. I came to know somebody who worked diligently and looked at the budget with a critical eye. When Jack Lew announced Heather's nomination, he said she was known for her ``dedication to sound public policy that makes a difference in people's lives.'' Health care, technology, poverty, education, infrastructure--for every single one of these priorities, she will look at them to determine whether the current policies are working, whether there are ways we could do things more effectively, and whether the American taxpayer is getting what they deserve in return for their investment. For all those efforts, I think Jack Lew could not have chosen a stronger or more competent Deputy. For all of those efforts, I think Jack Lew could not have chosen a stronger or a more competent deputy. I hope my colleagues will support her nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank the chairman of the Commerce Committee, the Senator from West Virginia. I strongly support the nomination of John Bryson to serve as Secretary of Commerce. I think he is an exceptional choice by the President, and I am absolutely confident, having served with many Commerce Secretaries through the years, that he is going to be one of our best. I think he is the right person at this moment in time to be taking the helm at the Department of Commerce. It is a critical, defining moment in many ways for our economy. The challenges are well known by everybody here in the Senate, and the decisions we make or fail to make on new energy sources, on infrastructure, technology, research--all of the items the Senator from West Virginia mentioned-- all of those are going to play a critical part in defining the United States leadership role in the global economy. The experience of John Bryson in the private sector has won him broad support in the business community. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from former Secretaries of Commerce serving both Republican and Democratic administrations alike be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I would say to the Presiding Officer, this is a letter written to Senator Reid and Senator McConnell from Carlos Gutierrez, Norman Mineta, Barbara Franklin, Don Evans, Mickey Kantor, Pete Peterson, all former Commerce Secretaries, all of whom are strongly supportive of this nomination. In addition, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to Senator Reid from the president and CEO of the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say, very quickly, that John Bryson brings to this role the special qualities of somebody who has served as the chairman and CEO of one of the Nation's largest utility companies for almost 20 years, being the chairman and CEO of Edison International. He has been a board member for nonprofit organizations as well as for major corporations in our country: Boeing, Disney, some of the great success stories of our country. He has extensive experience working on international issues through his work at Edison International and as chair of the Pacific Council on International Policy. I am convinced that if he is confirmed as Secretary of Commerce today, he is going to focus on increasing American exports, and he will be a superb ambassador, helping American companies that are looking to expand across the globe. This is a person who has already proven his ability to be able to deal with people in other countries, with other companies, and I am confident about his ability to perform this task. His previous experience has exposed him to the importance of innovation and technology at a vital time for the information economy. His Department is now leading the administration in its efforts on issues ranging from privacy to spectrum reform. I am confident he is the right person to help make that process work. I also know his work on competitiveness means he will be at the forefront of helping to lead our country to, in fact, invest in the skills of our workers, the infrastructure of the Nation, and retain and bring the brightest people in the world to this task. Finally, I want to close saying, in my conversations with whom I hope to be Secretary Bryson, we raised an issue that is of critical importance to us in Massachusetts. Because of Federal regulations limiting fishing in our waters, a lot of our fishermen have been put out of business or pushed to the brink, and there is a great frustration that exists between the fishing community in our region and the Federal Government. When I met with John Bryson, he exhibited an understanding of the importance of that issue and a willingness to come to Massachusetts and help us resolve this current situation. We are, frankly, here waiting for his confirmation, months after those conversations took place, and his talents could have been put to use in so much of the challenge we face in this Nation. I hope my colleagues will join in an overwhelming vote of support for this outstanding, capable nominee, who I think is the right person for this time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on Friday, October 7, the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 was awarded to three distinguished women for their courageous efforts to promote peace and democracy. President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia, her compatriot and peace activist Leymah Gbowee, and prodemocracy campaigner Tawakkol Karman of Yemen join the ranks of the chosen few whose dedication to peace is acknowledged by the international community. President Johnson Sirleaf, Africa's first democratically elected female head of state, has helped Liberia recover from 14 brutal years of civil war. Taking office in 2006 after a lengthy exile, she led her nation to greater peace and security, while transforming Liberia in the eyes of the world. Ms. Gbowee, a founding member of the Women in Peacebuilding Network, mobilized over 3,000 Muslim and Christian women to hold nonviolent protests that helped bring an end to Liberia's civil war. Her efforts demonstrate that the desire for peace and the power to effect change transcend ethnic, religious, and gender divides. Ms. Karman has for years been a vocal champion of human rights in Yemen. In 2005, she founded a group called Women Journalists Without Chains. Since then, she has braved physical threats and harassment to advance the cause of freedom in her country. And this year, she has emerged as one of the leaders of Yemen's nonviolent democratic uprising. As the first Arab woman to receive a Nobel prize, her selection honors all of the mothers, daughters, and sisters across the Middle East who have been standing for their rights alongside their fathers, sons and brothers. In the history of the Nobel Peace Prize, very few women have received this high honor. The choice of the selection committee this year is more than a recognition of the strength and courage of these women; it is a clear and resounding testament to the idea that women's rights are important, that it is smart policy to promote gender equality, and that societies are better off when all of their members--women included--can safely exercise their fundamental rights and become drivers of economic security and political opportunity. Let's take this moment to remember another Nobel Peace Prize winner, Dr. Wangari Maathai, who passed away just days before this year's announcement. Dr. Maathai led the Green Belt Movement with tenacity and vision, transforming Kenya's landscape and women's lives. She and the women who are honored this year leave an indelible mark on our social consciousness. I want to congratulate President Johnson Sirleaf, Ms. Gbowee, and Ms. Karman on their selection and to thank them for their service to their communities and commitment to uphold global standards of human rights.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at a time to be determined by the majority leader, in consultation with the Republican leader, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Calendar No. 78; that there be 4 hours for debate equally divided in the usual form; that upon the use or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to vote without intervening action or debate on Calendar No. 78; that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any statements related to the nomination be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following nomination: Calendar No. 287; that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be made and laid upon the table, with no intervening action or debate, and that no further motions be in order to the nomination; that any related statements be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, over the course of the past half century, Joe Garland served as the unofficial historian of Gloucester, MA--its fishermen, its boats and its life. But Joe Garland not only wrote history in his books and newspaper column--he was part of history, guiding his beloved hometown through headwinds and troubled waters. Joe Garland passed away August 30, and his family and friends gathered October 1 for a memorial service. I would like to share with the Senate the thoughts and memories of Joe that I shared with those who were part of that service honoring this great champion of all things Gloucester. If you visit the Fisherman's Memorial on Gloucester's waterfront on a stormy winter day, the statue of the Heroic Mariner seems to be steering the whole town into the wind toward fair weather. And if you look closely at the statue, you can almost see Joe Garland in its carved granite face, full of grit and determination, guiding his beloved Gloucester through headwinds and troubled waters. ``Beating to windward'' is the art of sailing into the wind. ``Beating to Windward'' is also the name of the column Joe wrote so many years for the Gloucester Times. And it is no surprise to any of us who knew him that Joe used the column to champion all things Gloucester. Joe didn't just chronicle Gloucester's history--he was a part of it. In his column and in his books, he brought to life the era of the great schooners--like the 122-foot Adventure, the flagship of Gloucester, and the larger-than-life Gloucestermen--like the ``Bear of the Sea,'' Giant Jim Patillo, and the ``Lone Voyager,'' Howard Blackburn. But he also used the sharpness of his pen to make his case on all kinds of civil causes--opposing unbridled economic development, warning about the loss of local control of the hospital and water supply, complaining about comprises on the environment or demanding the preservation of Gloucester's beauty. And trust me--Joe never hesitated to offer his advice to a certain U.S. Senator, if he felt like I needed it. Joe wrote with passion, conviction and humor, never with ill will or with the intent to wound. He was a gentleman. And always, whether in his column or in his books, he promoted the interests of Gloucester's fishing fleet. In my office in Washington, I have a copy of the book he wrote in 2006, ``The Fish and the Falcon,'' about Gloucester's role in the American Revolution. His inscription to me expresses his appreciation ``for your efforts to relieve the fiscal crisis that has long haunted our beleaguered fishing industry.'' He urged me to keep up the fight, and I have. Joe wrote 21 books, and I always enjoyed his sharing the latest with me. In my Boston office, I have a copy of his book about the Adventure, which he helped to restore. It arrived with an invitation from Joe to tour the schooner and, of course, I didn't waste any time accepting his invitation. He welcomed me aboard, and his tour made the Adventure's history come alive--from its construction in 1926 through its career as a ``highliner,'' the biggest moneymaker of them all, landing nearly $4 million worth of cod and halibut during her career. But the book that spoke to me the most was his last, ``Unknown Soldiers,'' his memoir of World War II and his journey from a student at Harvard to a ``dogface'' with a close-knit infantry in Sicily, Italy, France and finally Germany. It is a clear, eloquent and unflinching panorama of the mundane and the horrific in war. It is, by turns, humorous, poignant and gut-wrenching, with the common soldier perspective long associated with journalist Ernie Pyle or cartoonist Bill Mauldin, a point of view with which soldiers from my war, from any war--a band of brothers stretching through generations of Americans-- can identify. I was deeply saddened to learn of Joe's passing. But I am glad that his passing was gentle, his last moments of his life near the window of his beloved house by the sea, surrounded by loved ones and squeezing the hand of the woman he loved--Helen, his wife, his World War II pen pal. And how fitting that in those final moments, the schooner Landon fired a farewell cannon salute to Joe as it headed out to sea. Joe loved the tradition of cannon salutes, so much so that he fired one at the wedding of his stepdaughter, Alison, only to have it backfire, burning a hole in his jacket and covering his face with gunpowder, just in time for the official wedding photos. But that was Joe, and a face smudged with gunpowder underscored what we all know--truly, his was a life well lived. There is an anonymous quote I once read which may well describe how we should think of Joe's passing. It says: I am standing upon the seashore. A ship at my side spreads her white sails to the morning breeze and starts for the blue ocean. She is an object of beauty and strength, and I stand and watch her until, at length, she hangs like a speck of white cloud just where the sea and sky come down to mingle with each other. Then someone at my side says, ``There! She's gone.'' Gone where? Gone from my sight--that is all. She is just as large in mast and hull and spar as she was when she left my side, and just as able to bear her load of living freight to the place of destination. Her diminished size is in me, not in her, and just at the moment when someone at my side says, ``There, she's gone,''--there are other eyes watching her coming, and other voices ready to take up the glad shout, ``There she comes!'' And that is dying. Because Joe loved the sea so much--and because he enjoyed watching seagulls soar--I close with a special poem. It is titled ``Sea Joy'' and it was written in 1939 by a little girl named Jaqueline Bouvier. America eventually came to know her as Jackie Kennedy. But when she was 10 years old, she wrote: ``When I go down by the sandy shore I can think of nothing I want more Than to live by the booming blue sea As the seagulls flutter round about me I can run about--when the tide is out With the wind and the sand and the sea all about And the seagulls are swirling and diving for fish Oh--to live by the sea is my only wish.'' To Helen and Joe's family, I extend my deepest sympathy, but with a reminder that Joe's work, like the sea he loved, is eternal and booming, and that Joe's life, like the seagulls he enjoyed so much, swirled and soared. And to Joe, from one sailor to another, I wish him ``fair winds and following seas.''

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Record on the dates indicated, and ask unanimous consent, to save the expense of reprinting on the Executive Calendar that these nominations lie at the Secretary's desk for the information of Senators.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time is being divided now or is it divided?

Mr. KERRY. Well, Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may use under the 1 hour, and I will not use all that, by any means. Mr. President, this is obviously an issue that is more complicated than the debate may have indicated--at all moments, at least. I think there are complicated and longstanding frustrations that have built up with a lot of Senators and a lot of people in America that bring us here to this moment on the Senate floor. As chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have a reluctance to see us engage in an effort that I think can put other interests at risk in certain ways. On the other hand, I have voted to allow and help this legislation to reach the point of postcloture because I think it is an important debate and because I think China needs to carefully think about the process and the substance of what people are saying on the floor of the Senate. This is a very complicated relationship, with enormous interests on both sides, and we need to avoid a confrontation in a lot of different ways. There are a lot of different kinds of confrontations--trade, physical confrontation in the South China Sea and the straits and elsewhere, confrontations over human rights in Tibet--and there are a lot of issues at play. But with respect to the trade issue, China has a huge interest in the United States being able to export more effectively to China. China has an interest in its middle class growing in its purchasing power and expressing that purchasing power through consumption. One of the things China needs is its own higher level of domestic consumption. It is saving too much. One of the reasons it saves too much is it doesn't have a safety net structure of any kind, really, so people do save. That is the nature of life there. But at the same time, I think China is seeing a slowdown of its own economy now. One of the reasons for the slowdown in China's economy is the fact that we have had a slowdown in our economy and our ability to consume, and the American consumer is paying off debt, wisely, and consuming less of the goods brought in from China. So it all is interconnected. China is also our biggest banker. China is critical to our ability to deal with our current economic challenge in many ways--and Europe's, I might add. Both Europe and the United States would benefit significantly with a new trade relationship with China. That is what I want to talk about for a moment. I believe in trade. I have supported trade here. I don't believe in unequal trade. I don't believe in unfair trade. I believe in enforcing the agreements we have. If you look at NAFTA, for instance, NAFTA had side agreements--side agreements on the environment, side agreements on labor standards--and they were never enforced. People have a right to be angry if they see an agreement that is made and then parts of it are enforced, parts of it are not, and they see their jobs go overseas, whether it is from North Carolina or Georgia or Massachusetts or Ohio or any other place in our country. So I think it is important to have trade that is fair and sensible. You are not going to grow your economy trading with yourself--no way--particularly if your overall population growth isn't growing that fast and you are a mature economy. Economics just doesn't work that way. You need newer markets and other places to expand. So I believe it is important for us to recognize that the world's trading system only works if the participants treat each other fairly. Over the last decade, our national debate on the costs and benefits of trade has intensified, and, frankly, the uneasy alliance, the uneasy consensus that had been created from the 1980s forward with respect to trade is being frayed right now, is being frayed for understandable and clearly definable reasons. The American worker is not seeing their wages go up. There are a lot of reasons for that: the unfairness of our Tax Code, the inability of people in America today to be able to bargain the way they used to, the lack of an NLRB and a court that uphold the rights of labor to be able to negotiate--a whole bunch of reasons people are disadvantaged today. One of them is the fact that you have this unfair competition. In order to keep the consensus that allows Americans to say: Yes, trade is a good thing, it has to be a good thing. And to be a good thing, it has to be fair and it has to result in people's lives being improved by it, meaning their wages go up, their job gets better, and their opportunities are better. But everything has been working in the opposite direction. I think that is why so many of our colleagues feel a responsibility to come to the floor on this legislation and make sure that China and others hear from the American people loudly and clearly. We did this before on a vote we took on currency legislation back in 2005. I think China heard us then, and China began slowly to allow the value of its currency to begin to fluctuate rather than keeping it pegged tightly to the dollar. China has taken measures. In fairness, China's currency has appreciated over the course of the last few years. Some argue exactly how much--somewhere in the vicinity of 27 percent, maybe 7 percent the last year--but it is not fast enough, and it is still not fair enough. And the fact is that there are other Chinese trade tactics that contribute to our increasing trade deficit with China, not just currency. Unfortunately, our efforts through multilateral institutions--nobody can point a finger at the United States and suggest that we haven't played by the rules or that we haven't gone to the global institutions in order to try to resolve these differences. We have gone to the World Trade Organization, and we have won, step by step, slowly but surely. But if your tactic is to just keep in this highly mercantilistic, focused strategy of China's to just keep on pushing, take advantage of everything you can, and you get a little nibble against you here and there at the WTO, a little nibble over there, that is really just an inconvenience on the road to a kind of trade domination that is bad for everybody. That is why I am here today. That is why I have voted for this legislation to come to the floor, to have this debate. This debate is an imperfect stand-in for the broader discussion we need to have about our economic relationship with China. The truth is that our bilateral relationship is both filled with promise and plagued by complex challenges we have to overcome for the good of both countries. The Chinese market is a huge and growing opportunity for American firms, obviously. Despite the hurdles to entry--and there are hurdles-- China is still our fastest growing export market today. People had better think about this as we go forward. I am convinced that the key to America pulling itself out of this economic challenge we are in today and the key to Europe pulling itself out is for the United States and Europe to actually work out, almost formally, a new and better relationship with respect to trade with China, as well as with the other fast-developing countries--Mexico, South Korea, Brazil, India--because if those societies will allow us adequate entry to market and if those societies will purchase more from Europe and the United States, then we will export more, manufacture more, and come out of the economic doldrums. That reverberates to China's benefit, also, because their investments in the United States become more secure, because our debt goes down, because we have a stronger economy, and because we are purchasing more in return from them. What goes around comes around. My hope is that we can agree on fair terms and conditions for trade with these rising powers. If we do, we will create jobs. That is the fastest way we have to create jobs and pull out of our economic doldrums today. The simplest, fastest, most obvious way to do this is to be able to access those other markets rapidly with American goods and begin to restore confidence to the marketplace so that people believe they will get a larger return on their investment and begin to reinvest in job creation and in the marketplace. The current trade model we are operating under with massive U.S. trade deficits and enormous Chinese trade surpluses is not only unfair, it is unsustainable. So we have to rebalance that relationship. And China's own leaders need to understand that their country's long-term economic health absolutely cannot rest on a foundation of subsidized exports fueled by an indebted American consumer and the credit card of the American consumer. That is a deathly unvirtuous--to use our former Fed Chairman's comments about virtuous and unvirtuous cycles, it is about as unvirtuous as you can get in that economic relationship. Now, conflict, in my judgment, is not the best way to resolve our tensions. Making clear how we feel and what we think the reality is and what is important in our relationship is critical. Some of our colleagues have come to the floor to argue that our two countries are already in a trade war. Others have come to the floor to say this bill is going to trigger one. I don't agree with either view. I don't think either one of those views is correct. If we were in a real trade war with our largest lender, let me tell you, they would be doing a heck of a lot more damage than the misalignment of currency is currently doing to us. The specific remedy proposed in this legislation is neither as dramatic nor as offensive as some people have said. This is a pretty carefully structured piece of legislation, and I think the language has been chosen in a thoughtful way and the remedies that are available under this bill are not as dramatic as some would suggest. It doesn't propose raising tariffs on all Chinese goods. It only proposes increasing tariffs on those Chinese goods that receive an unfair advantage from an undervalued currency and then compete with American- made goods here in the United States. It is a pretty limited and targeted message. And that is within our rights. If the yuan is properly valued, that will simply not be necessary. That is China's decision, China's choice. I would much prefer a negotiated, multilateral solution, as I described, involving this new relationship, a new trade relationship on a global basis, which I think would send an extraordinary message to a beleaguered Europe, where Greece, as we all know, is basically fundamentally insolvent, needing some kind of a managed, structured transition hopefully that avoids a greater crisis in Italy and Spain and contagion in their banking system, which clearly needs recapitalization, clearly needs more than the $440 billion that was put on the table, clearly needs some kind of a rescue fund with some very tight kinds of requirements not dissimilar to what we did in the United States in 2008 and 2009 out of sheer necessity. My hope is they will do that. Nothing would do more to send a message of confidence about the future of job growth than to have this new trade understanding and relationship where responsible partners are behaving responsibly and accepting responsibility for the global marketplace in which we all operate, not just exploit it but support it, protect it, nurture it. Beyond the currency, there are many other sources of tension in our economic relationship, and they need to be resolved. China does not protect adequately our intellectual property in its market. That is almost a euphemism. The violations of intellectual property rights, the outright theft in some streets and communities within China of billions of dollars of American designed and marketed and developed property is shocking. In addition to that, China imposes artificial regulatory barriers to the entry of many of our goods. It fails to crack down on cyber attacks, and it has executed a thinly veiled effort to appropriate key foreign technologies. On each of these issues, and others, we have been going to the WTO, we have been bringing cases, and we have been winning those cases. As I have said, that is not a substitute for this larger fix in the relationship that is critical. I believe overcoming market access challenges is actually where we ought to be focusing our efforts in China and also in the other large, fast-growing markets. That, as I have said several times, is really the answer--the quick answer, if you will. We can develop goods and we can invest in companies here, but if we can't sell the goods to more than ourselves, we have some serious limits on us. It is important for us to be fighting for that market access. I believe that to increase our exports, we are going to have to increase our competitiveness at home and we are going to have to convince our partners to lower their tariffs, remove discriminatory regulatory restrictions on our exporters, protect intellectual property, use scientific standards as the basis for allowing our agricultural goods to enter, and recognize that trade in services is becoming as important to the modern economy as trade in goods. We need to make the case that doing all of these things is not to the advantage of one country or another, it is to all of our shared advantage because of the nature of the global marketplace in which we live. Countries such as China, India, and Brazil are stakeholders. Whether or not they want to admit it publicly, they are stakeholders in the West's economic success. They need access to our customers. They need access to our investors. They want to make deals over here. They want to be in joint ventures. They want to own companies. And their businesses and citizens will benefit from strong, sustainable growth in the world's largest economies. China is an important partner of the United States in a lot of ways. It is also a major investor in the United States. So I don't think we are here to rupture that relationship; I think we are here to send a message to the Chinese about the urgent need to repair it. We want a mutually beneficial relationship, an equitable partnership that will pay dividends for both countries. And I believe, if we listen to each other and work in good faith, we can make that happen and we can enter into a better framework of cooperation that inures to the benefits and the security and the stability and the leadership demands of both of our countries. We both sit on the Security Council of the United Nations. We both have remarkable responsibilities through our economic power. We are still the largest economy on the face of this planet, maybe three times larger than China--still, even as China is growing. China will surpass us. With that reality of where China stands today economically comes major responsibility. No country has exercised that responsibility through all the last century and into this century with a greater sense of purpose and responsibility than the United States. Hopefully, China will embrace the notion that its new economic power brings with it that same shared responsibility. I hope we can engage in the creation of that kind of mutually beneficial relationship. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I wish to commend the American Academy of Arts and Sciences on the occasion of the institution's October 1, 2011, induction ceremony for the 231st class of members in Cambridge, MA. These 211 new members earned election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences for extraordinary individual achievement and are among the world's most influential artists, scientists, scholars, authors, and institutional leaders. In accepting membership into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, these individuals agreed to contribute their talents, experience, and knowledge to help the academy advance the Nation's social welfare. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is an august, quintessentially American institution founded by Massachusetts' own John Adams and other scholar-patriots during our Nation's struggle for independence. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences is currently chaired by Louis W. Cabot and led by President Leslie C. Berlowitz and is a vital center of knowledge focused on the great challenges and concerns of the day, from science and technology policy to global security; social policy to the humanities; and culture, and education. I won't read all 211 of the new members' names, but listed among these brilliant individuals are; Dr. Daniel Arie Haber, the leading physician-scientist whose research has focused on the molecular genetics of human cancer. He identified genes implicated in breast cancer development and in Wilms' tumor, a children's kidney cancer. Chester C. Langway, Jr., who is responsible for launching the era of deep ice core drilling programs. He recruited scientists from other disciplines and countries to work on ice cores and collaborated closely with them. Consequently, international teams of scientists have extracted fundamental information from ice cores, and studies have provided detailed climatological and other environmental data, over a geological time period including the Holocene and late Pleistocene ages, on the regional and global conditions existing at the time of snow deposit. Results reveal man's impact on the changing environment and long-term evidence regarding abrupt global climate changes and led to discovery of the Dansgaard-Oeschger event. Dr. W. Jason Morgan, who was the first to propose that Earth's surface is made up of a number of rigid crustal blocks, establishing the kinematic framework for the paradigm of plate tectonics, which revolutionized the study of Earth and its history. Also included in this group is Robert Kraft, who is probably best known as the owner of our beloved New England Patriots but has also dedicated his life to advancing science, philanthropy, the arts, and education. I am including for the Record the names of all 211 inductees into the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. I wish them all the best and thank them for their contribution to the knowledge of our Nation. The information follows:

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to speak about the amendment that has been introduced by the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn. I think it is amendment No. 634. I will take only a few minutes, as I know my colleague from Indiana is waiting, but I do wish to speak to it, if I may. The Senator from Texas has introduced an amendment that takes an unprecedented step in the Senate; that is, the step of actually requiring the President, by mandate--with respect to one weapon system in one singular amendment--to sell a specific weapon to another country. Specifically, the Senator wants to take the unprecedented step of requiring the President of the United States to sell 66 new F-16 fighter aircraft to Taiwan. The amendment mandates the sale of these new aircraft, despite the fact that just yesterday the President and the administration notified Congress of their intention to provide Taiwan with nearly six billion dollars' worth of items in defense goods and services, on top of money they have already provided to Taiwan--including upgrades to Taiwan's current fleet of 145 F-16s. I will stand by my record of 26-plus years of voting for the appropriate defense relationship with respect to Taiwan and China. We have always respected the Taiwan Relations Act, and I think we have consistently stood by Taiwan and kept faith with that act. Without a doubt, the growing military disparity between China and other countries in the region, as well as China and Taiwan, is something we need to be thinking about and taking into account as we contemplate the long-term future of all those relationships in that region. But that said, I am opposed to this specific amendment. I believe Senator Baucus, who has already spoken in opposition to it, and others, I believe, are opposed to it for two appropriate reasons: one, the substance of the amendment itself--and I will speak to that--but also, plain and simply, this is not the right vehicle to address this issue. Everybody understands that consideration of TAA is part of a very complicated approach to what Senator Thune just commented on--a much- too-long-awaited dealing with several trade agreements a lot of us want to pass and we think we should pass. Passage of this TAA proposal-- without these other issues being added to it, which would put it in jeopardy--is critical to being able to help American workers as well as to lining up those three pending trade agreements which will create jobs in the United States and which will also enhance our security. So if we were to pass the Cornyn amendment--which we know the administration strongly opposes--that would imperil this very carefully crafted jobs package we are now considering. On that basis alone, I would urge colleagues to vote against this amendment. But I believe there are powerful, substantive reasons for why this amendment shouldn't pass just on its own. Mandating the sale of one particular weapon is not the way for the United States to respond or to deal with or manage the complex national security challenge of that region and the complexity of the relationship with Taiwan. I would remind colleagues that the $6 billion in new arms sales, of various kinds--including a major upgrade package to all the 145 F-16s-- is an enormous, important package which Taiwan wants and needs and which Taiwan believes will bring it up to par with respect to those systems and the need to be able to defend itself. I think we have to remember that ever since President Nixon opened the door to China nearly 40 years ago, the United States has worked very carefully to promote peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait. The Taiwan Relations Act has long governed our policy toward Taiwan because we don't have a formal diplomatic relationship or a formal treaty. With respect to arms sales, let me share with my colleagues what the TRA says. It shall be the policy of the United States ``to provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character'' and ``to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion'' which would jeopardize the security of the people of Taiwan. Finally, the TRA obligates the United States to provide such defense goods and services to Taiwan as are ``necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.'' The Obama administration and the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate and House, with respect to it, take the provisions of that act very seriously. The administration has carefully analyzed, as have we, the military balance across the Taiwan Strait, and we have consulted closely with the Government of Taiwan as to how to best meet Taiwan's defensive needs. On Wednesday, the administration formally notified Congress of its intent to send a very substantial retrofit package that would upgrade the current fleet. As I mentioned, there are 145 F-16s that Taiwan has today and that Taiwan relies on today for its current defense needs. These upgrades include state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry-- including Actively Electronically Scanned Array Radars, targeting systems, the AIM-9X air-to-air missiles, and precision-guided munitions. So I don't believe there is any question but that the United States is now, and will continue to be, in full compliance with the requirements of the TRA. But this package also makes clear that support for Taiwan is not a partisan issue. The Bush administration, in its 8 years--two full terms--notified Congress of the sale of roughly $15 billion total in arms sales to Taiwan. With the announcement of this sale of the additional items Taiwan needs, the administration--the Obama administration--in less than 3 years has approved the sale of over $12 billion in arms to Taiwan. So we have $15 billion over 8 years from the Bush administration and $12 billion over 3 years from the Obama administration. Moreover, the administration's $5.8 billion retrofit and training proposal provides the necessary parts, equipment, training, and logistical support for a cost-effective upgrade of Taiwan's current status; most importantly, it elevates Taiwan's current fleet of F-16s to a level of capability consistent with the most advanced export variants of this aircraft. Let us understand where we are--what the state of play is. Taiwan has an urgent defense need today. They have 145 aircraft we have already sold them. We are prepared to provide them an upgrade that brings those aircraft up to the total state of the art of the most advanced export variants we are allowed to export to another country, and it will prevent these 145 aircraft from becoming obsolete. This is the most sensible, cost-effective, effective way to provide an upgrade and to provide Taiwan with the capacity it needs. To the degree people are thinking jobs in the United States of America and what about selling, a lot of us have never believed we ought to use defense sales or weapons sales to create jobs. There are a lot more effective ways of creating jobs. But to whatever degree anybody wants to measure this by that standard, the $5.8 billion sale announced yesterday will be welcome news to the workers of Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, Pratt & Whitney, and many other defense firms. Again, I emphasize that is not the rationale for the sale, and none of us should resort to those kinds of sales for the purpose of jobs. But if that is going to be a measurement or a consideration in anybody's mind, make no mistake, the $6 billion the President has proposed will have its own impact. Finally, let me point out to colleagues, and I think it is an important consideration, nothing in the proposed upgrade package will preclude the United States from providing new F-16s as we go down the road, as they may be necessary, as a judgment is made about them or any other similar platform to Taiwan in the future. The administration has taken pains to make clear to Congress and to Taiwan the approval of this sale does not and will not prejudice any future decision on new aircraft. Yesterday, President Ma Ying-jeou of Taiwan said the upgrades to Taiwan's existing F-16A/B jets are aimed at maintaining the country's self-defense capabilities while pursuing peaceful development across the Taiwan Strait. The President of Taiwan said of the upgrade package: We have to develop peaceful ties with Mainland China. But we haven't for one second let our guard down when it comes to Taiwan's security. I don't believe the Taiwanese believe they are letting their guard down. I don't think they believe we are not meeting their needs. Obviously, Congress has an important role to play in determining how to meet those needs, but I don't think we should, in the wake of the evidence here, make an independent judgment outside of what is already happening. We certainly shouldn't blindly defer to the Executive on Taiwan arm sales. But I think to compel the Executive to make a specific arms sale to a specific country measured against the steps already taken and the steps being taken would be an unprecedented intervention by the Senate under circumstances where there just has not been made the kind of compelling, urgent argument that that is the only way to proceed. So I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment when the time comes for us to vote on it. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think all of us agree with the intent and the direction the Senator from Texas wants to go here with respect to our friendship and our support of Taiwan. In the 26 years I have been here, I have never not supported doing what is necessary to live up to the Taiwan Relations Act. But the Senator is reaching way beyond what we have ever done in the Senate, which is to compel a single weapons systems sale by the President with respect to a complex relationship such as China-Taiwan and the entire presence of the United States in the areas of the straits and in that region. We have never done that. Moreover, the President of Taiwan has said it is entirely adequate. He feels they will have the defensive capacity necessary under the TRA in order to be able to defend themselves at the current level with the upgrade we are providing. Let me point out that under President Bush, over 8 years, we provided $12 billion to Taiwan--over 8 years. In 3 years of the Obama administration, he has provided about $12 billion--3 years. So there was $15 billion by Bush over 8 years, $12 billion by Obama over 3 years. The upgrade that is being provided--$6 billion worth of upgrade, sales of weapons--includes state-of-the-art avionics and weaponry, including the Active Electronically Scanned Array Radars, targeting systems, Aim-9X air-to-air missiles, and precision-guided munitions. Those airplanes, those 145 F-16s, will have state-of-the-art capacity at the highest level of any F-16 that we are allowed to sell to any country in the world. Moreover, the administration has made it absolutely clear that this does not preclude the sale of F-16s maybe in the next months, maybe in the next year, but that ought to be done by any administration, Republican or Democratic, in an orderly way as a matter of good arms policy and as a matter of good foreign policy. In addition to that, the administration is unalterably opposed to this. So here we are working hard under a fairly careful script to get TAA out of here so we can move to three trade agreements that a lot of us want to move and pass, which means jobs for America. They have been long overdue. We pass this amendment, we lose that opportunity. It is that simple. So these are all tradeoffs, but this is a tradeoff measured against the lack of any need for urgency as a matter of defense policy and foreign policy to do this. So I say to my colleagues, why, for the first time, without that showing of urgency and need, particularly given the President of Taiwan's own statements, are we going to for the first time compel a President to do something he does not think he wants to do in the context of the relationship with both China and Taiwan? I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say, very quickly, that the sale of weapons measured against the policy decisions in a set of relationships that are critical to the balance of power and the threat and danger and so forth has never been translated into a jobs program. If you want it to be--$6 billion spent on these upgrades--Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, and a host of companies will benefit from that $6 billion and may benefit from the sale of weapons down the road. This is a policy issue. The policy question is whether the President of Taiwan can speak for Taiwan as the Senator from Texas speaks for Taiwan. It is whether we are going to be adequately meeting the needs of the TRA and the foreign policy priorities of an administration that, it seems to me, given the statements of the President of Taiwan, not only don't violate it but sustain the relationship of the TRA. I have proudly voted in support of Taiwan for the entire time I have been here, 26 years. I believe I am voting for them today, even as I oppose this amendment but support the administration's $6 billion program for upgrade and those 145 F-16s--and maybe we will sell them some others.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, just a few days ago I received a special gift from a consummate mariner, Rich Wilson of Marblehead, MA, the skipper of the Great American III. The gift was a U.S. Yacht Ensign, the red, white and blue flag used to identify American licensed yachts since 1848. What made this particular Ensign so special is that Rich flew it aboard the Great American III on December 10, 2008, in the solo, nonstop, around-the-world sailing race known as the Vendee Globe. Rich flew the Ensign on his 31st day at sea from France, just as he was entering the Indian Ocean bound for Cape Horn. Ninety days later, Rich and the 60-foot Great American III completed their 28,000-mile global trek from France to France, ninth among the 11 finishers of a race that began with 30 boats. Rich was the only American entry, the oldest skipper in the fleet at 58 years of age, and only the second American ever to finish the Vendee Globe in its six quadrennial runnings. The Vendee Globe is widely regarded as the Mount Everest of the seas. But, in fact, it is even a greater challenge than climbing Mount Everest. Consider the fact that while 3,000 people have climbed Mount Everest, Rich was only the 46th person ever to sail alone around the world nonstop. Consider, too, the fact that some 500 astronauts have flown in space, and that further underscores just how rare and special Rich's accomplishment in the Vendee Globe truly is. The Vendee Globe is like no other event on this earth. It is a grueling contest largely unsullied by hype and commerce, a competition of men and women against each other but mostly against the ceaselessly moving sea, sometimes playful, sometimes terrifying, an immense power inspiring admiration, caution and, above all, respect. But in the hands of Rich Wilson, the Vendee Globe also became a learning experience for students and newspaper readers throughout the world. As with his earlier long-distance ocean voyages, Rich shared his Vendee Globe experience through the online company he founded, www.sitesalive.com, a nonprofit that has produced 75 live, interactive, full-semester programs linking K-12 classrooms to adventures and expeditions worldwide. During the 2008-2009 Vendee Globe, sitesalive.com shared Rich's 15-part weekly series, written at sea from the Great American, with 250,000 students and 7 million readers. Rich's goal was to excite students and engage students by connecting them to a live ocean expedition. As Rich explains it the reasoning behind sitesalive.com: ``Excite a kid with dolphins, flying fish, and gales at sea, or with snakes, bugs, and bats in the rainforest, and they will pay attention, not knowing what will happen next. Then the science, geography, and math flow freely.'' Anyone who enjoyed high seas adventure novels like Moby-Dick and Treasure Island or anyone who marveled at National Geographic expeditions or the adventures of Jacques Cousteau on the Calypso can understand how Rich is making the world come alive for students. And anyone who has sailed, even within sight of the shore, or who has run a marathon or has hiked a mountain range can appreciate the skill, conditioning, and discipline it took for Rich to complete Vendee Globe. I thank Rich for the Ensign, the memento from his great adventure, and I congratulate him, not only for completing his great voyage but also for sharing it online with millions of people around the world. And as he considers whether to enter the Vendee Globe again in 2012, I urge him to once again climb aboard the Great American III and set sail.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I yield myself such time as I use. Let me, first of all, thank the Senator from Michigan, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, for his comments and particularly for the recommendations that he is going to make to the supercommittee, to each of us. I think all of us in the Senate know Senator Levin is one of the most creative and thoughtful Senators. I am confident that the suggestions he makes are going to be important ones that are going to be worthy of consideration. I know also, because it is something I began to focus on back in the 1980s, this issue of offshore havens is absolutely staggering. I look forward to this. I know the Senator has led the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations on that. They have done outstanding work. I am confident that a lot of that work can be certainly put on the table, and it ought to be seriously considered. My hope is we can do something about it.

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, one of the amendments we will vote on shortly is an amendment by Senator Rand Paul with respect to cutting-- or an offset, if you will--of $6.9 billion from the State Department and USAID in order to fund FEMA disaster relief programs. First of all, a number of colleagues have come to the Senate floor over the last couple of days and talked about the principle that has governed our efforts to provide disaster assistance through all of the years of this institution. We do not know how to plan on the amounts. We do not hold people accountable to other programs because of acts of God, natural disasters that arise suddenly, and the Nation has always been rich enough and responsible enough to guarantee that we provide assistance to communities that have been hard hit by a flood, by a tornado, ravaged by fires--by some natural disaster. I think the notion that suddenly we are going to start offsetting at a time when we are engaged in a very delicate balance of offsets with respect to the regular budgeting process is to try to put in place an inappropriate principle at an inappropriate time. That argument has been made considerably. I want to talk for a minute about the merits of this particular proposal on its face. Let me make as clear as I can that this amendment would be absolutely devastating to our foreign aid and development programs. It would decimate agencies that have already taken huge funding cuts in fiscal year 2011, and it would completely undermine core national security priorities and humanitarian commitments. Senator Paul argues that foreign aid is ``welfare we give to other nations, many of which are rich nations.'' I disagree with both parts of that sentence, and I disagree profoundly with the notion that foreign aid is somehow welfare. Foreign aid is an investment in our national security; it is not a gift to other countries. It is a very small investment that provides an enormous return in so many different ways in terms of advancing the interests of our country, of our citizens. Because of foreign aid in many parts of the world we have relationships, and we have programs, we have initiatives, joint ventures that make Americans safer every single day. We need to put politics aside and focus on concrete facts. I know the easiest thing in the world is to walk into a big townhall meeting and say we ought to be building in--whatever the community you are in--before we send money somewhere else, and everybody cheers. There is an instant reaction--easy applause, easy politics, but not smart politics in terms of the interests of our country. The fact is all of our foreign aid programs, all of our foreign policy initiatives, all in the State Department, everything we do in USAID, all the things we do from sending a diplomat to Baghdad or Pakistan or Afghanistan, every effort we make to help reverse the global HIV/AIDS epidemic, all of the things our State Department engages in make up barely 1 percent of the annual budget. So often when we go out to those townhalls that are ready to applaud the idea of just giving the money here, we ask people: How much do you think we give in foreign aid? And people say: Oh, my God, it is 50 percent of our budget or 10 percent or 5 percent. It is none of those. It is barely 1 percent. We spend about $700 billion on our military. By contrast, the international affairs budget in its entirety is less than one-tenth of the Pentagon's. A former Secretary of Defense, Bob Gates, pointed out, I think only a year or so ago, that if we took the entire Foreign Service roster we could barely crew one aircraft carrier in the U.S. Navy. I understand we face a budget crisis in our own country. Obviously, I understand that. We are working hard to address this issue in the new committee that has been formed by the Congress. But if we cut these funds now, I guarantee my colleagues we will pay a much stiffer price later for increased threats to our national security, for loss of opportunity, for loss of business, for graver crises, all of which will come as a result of America pulling back. I remind Senators our foreign policy and development programs have already been cut to the bone. The final fiscal year 2011 spending agreement cut $6.5 billion from the international affairs budget. That is a 10-percent cut. How many agencies took a 10-percent cut? It happens to also be a 15-percent cut from the President's request. At a time that we are fighting a war in Afghanistan, when we are managing turmoil in the Middle East, when we are trying to guarantee that in Egypt, which we have encouraged to have an uprising, which we have celebrated for its reach for democracy and for freedom, at a time when it is trying to do it, are we going to pull the rug out from under them and say: Go ahead Muslim brotherhood, its pickings are all for you? It doesn't make any sense at a time when we are coping with unprecedented famine in the Horn of Africa, millions of people starving to death, a global tragedy that challenges the morality of our Nation-- it would be unbelievably extreme and irresponsible to take the approach that Senator Paul's amendment takes. It would jeopardize our national security in several important ways. Let me just name a few specifically. First of all, it would threaten the State Department and USAID's ability to serve as a critical partner to the military in postconflict situations. For instance, in Afghanistan we are working hand in hand, State Department and Defense Department, in order to be able to transition to the Afghan forces. This would put those troops at risk, put that effort at risk. I think it would raise serious questions about the viability of what we are trying to accomplish. We are at a critical juncture in those efforts to stabilize Afghanistan and Pakistan. Cutting our aid to those countries will impact our military operations. For all of those Senators who want to get out of Afghanistan faster, we pull the aid out from underneath it, and we may be getting out in a way we do not want to, or we will make it longer before we get out in the way that we do want to. I suggest respectfully Senator Paul said he would ``much rather send . . . professors around the world than . . . our soldiers.'' I don't know an American who would not rather do that. We all hope that can happen as soon as possible. But we cannot just ordain it by saying: Here it is, here is what we are doing, and change the situations on the ground. The wish does not become the father to the fact in those situations. As we have seen in recent days with the attack on our embassy in Kabul, there is a lot of work to be done in Afghanistan before our college deans can take over from our district support teams. This cut would set back progress in creating markets for U.S. goods and services. Here we are struggling to create jobs in the United States. One of the best opportunities for jobs is export--export to the new, emerging middle classes of India, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, China, other places. We want to sell them those products. But if all of a sudden we are pulling back our ability to marshal opportunities in those markets, if we reduce the ability of the U.S. businesses to get those opportunities, we diminish our own efforts to strengthen our economy. We don't just face a budget deficit crisis, we also face a jobs deficit. In the face of global competition, our growth in our exports is directly tied to our ability to create new American markets. Money we spend helping to stabilize emerging economies has an amazing impact on our own economy, and that has been proven for all the years, certainly, since the end of World War II. The Paul amendment would also lead to a $1 billion cut in our battle against global AIDS. PEPFAR, the President's program on which George Bush--President George Bush, Republican--worked with us on the Foreign Relations Committee, a program Senator Helms and Senator Frist and I and others originally developed, a program that currently supports 3.5 million people on lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment, a reduction this size to 2011 funds would mean that around 1 million people would be thrown off of those treatments, dramatically reducing the numbers of lives saved through this program. We are a country that has prided ourselves on our willingness to live our values. The Judeo-Christian ethic is one of charity and one of concern for the poor, the downtrodden, the sick, and so forth. It is hard for me to understand how we can take an ethic of our private lives that everybody talks about so pronouncedly around here and look at the fact that there are some folks in America who tithe 10 percent of their income, or others who give a fixed percentage of their income in order to help the world, and here we are, as a matter of national policy, going to put 1 million people at risk from a program we are currently saving lives on? I don't understand that kind of value system. It would derail our efforts to forestall famine in the Horn of Africa, and that would trigger long-lasting suffering and destabilize the neighboring countries such as Yemen, Kenya, and Somalia. In Somalia alone approximately 3.2 million people are in need of immediate lifesaving assistance, a half million children are acutely malnourished, and more than 29,000 children under the age of 5 have tragically died. This planet knows how to feed people. Rich countries have an obligation to try to do that. Our obligation is de minimis. We should not come in here installing a new principle all of a sudden, for the first time ever, saying we have to offset money to pay for emergency assistance to our communities at the expense of young kids who are starving in another part of the world. I hope my colleagues will recognize this amendment is not the right way to approach this. It would have a negligible impact on our budget deficit, and its real impact on our security would be enormous.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 1 additional minute.