John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Senior Airman Michael Malarsie Act to increase the number of assistance dogs available to disabled servicemembers and veterans. I met Senior Airman Malarsie earlier this year, and his story and perseverance have inspired this legislation. In 2008, during a deployment to Afghanistan, Senior Airman Malarsie was seriously injured and blinded by an improvised explosive device. Blinded in both eyes, Senior Airman Malarsie was placed on a waiting list for several months before he was paired with his guide dog, Xxon. Only through generous donations totaling $45,000, Senior Airman Malarsie was able to receive a guide dog. Unfortunately, too often our wounded warriors must wait several months before receiving assistance dogs. According to Assistance Dogs International, last year there was a backlog of 188 veterans waiting for placement. I strongly believe we must do more so that they do not wait months for a trained assistance dog. The bill will create a joint grant program between the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to assist qualified assistance dog agencies provide trained dogs to covered servicemembers and veterans. The competitive grant program would be used for dogs that assist with specific disabilities such as hearing loss, mobility loss, visual impairment, and post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. A portion of each grant would be used for evaluation to ensure that grant funds are being used properly and that each member or veteran is provided with best trained dog possible. This bill authorizes $15 million for the competitive grant program. The number of veterans who require the assistance of assistance dogs is expected to increase as military members returning from combat are diagnosed with disabilities. The non-profit organizations that train and provide the service dogs free of charge to veterans cannot keep up with the surge of returning wounded warriors. Each service dog can cost up to $45,000 to train, and assistance dog organizations must rely on grants and the generosity of individuals, foundations, and corporations for funding. Through a competitive grant program, this bill will increase the number of assistance dogs available for veterans and active-duty members and decrease the waiting time for disabled warriors waiting for assistance. We must do more than watch as our servicemen return home from war and are forced to wait several months for an assistance dog simply due to a lack of funds. A number of organizations are supportive of this bill, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Disabled Veterans National Foundation, The Retired Enlisted Association, and Military Exits. I look forward to continued progress in assisting our wounded warriors and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, I am introducing the Senior Airman Michael Malarsie Act to increase the number of assistance dogs available to disabled servicemembers and veterans. I met Senior Airman Malarsie earlier this year, and his story and perseverance have inspired this legislation. In 2008, during a deployment to Afghanistan, Senior Airman Malarsie was seriously injured and blinded by an improvised explosive device. Blinded in both eyes, Senior Airman Malarsie was placed on a waiting list for several months before he was paired with his guide dog, Xxon. Only through generous donations totaling $45,000, Senior Airman Malarsie was able to receive a guide dog. Unfortunately, too often our wounded warriors must wait several months before receiving assistance dogs. According to Assistance Dogs International, last year there was a backlog of 188 veterans waiting for placement. I strongly believe we must do more so that they do not wait months for a trained assistance dog. The bill will create a joint grant program between the Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs to assist qualified assistance dog agencies provide trained dogs to covered servicemembers and veterans. The competitive grant program would be used for dogs that assist with specific disabilities such as hearing loss, mobility loss, visual impairment, and post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury. A portion of each grant would be used for evaluation to ensure that grant funds are being used properly and that each member or veteran is provided with best trained dog possible. This bill authorizes $15 million for the competitive grant program. The number of veterans who require the assistance of assistance dogs is expected to increase as military members returning from combat are diagnosed with disabilities. The non-profit organizations that train and provide the service dogs free of charge to veterans cannot keep up with the surge of returning wounded warriors. Each service dog can cost up to $45,000 to train, and assistance dog organizations must rely on grants and the generosity of individuals, foundations, and corporations for funding. Through a competitive grant program, this bill will increase the number of assistance dogs available for veterans and active-duty members and decrease the waiting time for disabled warriors waiting for assistance. We must do more than watch as our servicemen return home from war and are forced to wait several months for an assistance dog simply due to a lack of funds. A number of organizations are supportive of this bill, including the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the Disabled Veterans National Foundation, The Retired Enlisted Association, and Military Exits. I look forward to continued progress in assisting our wounded warriors and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I appreciate the words of the Senator from Arizona about the Senator from Arizona, and let me say I look forward to sharing some words on the floor at some point in the next few days about my friend Senator Kyl. We have disagreed on things in some ways, but, boy, have we gotten to know each other. I respect his service enormously, and I look forward to having a chance to share some thoughts about that. Remembering Daniel K. Inouye Madam President, I think all of us are aware that too often in public life words like ``good friend'' or ``remarkable colleague'' are used so often they lose a little bit of their impact. But I think we all share powerfully--ever since the majority leader announced the sad news last evening, and we have seen so many come to the floor to talk about Senator Inouye--in the knowledge that Senator Danny Inouye really was all those things and so much more. He was a quiet man, a humble man, a soft-spoken public servant, but those of us who were privileged to serve for so long with Dan Inouye know we truly got to know him. I had the privilege of sitting beside him and listening to some of the stories talking about things that were happening in the Senate, and we truly did get to love him and revere him. It was more than his uniquely American journey--from the trenches of World War II to the Halls of Congress--more than his leadership and moral authority on everything from civil rights to the Watergate and Iran-Contra hearings. It was more than the Dan Inouye we could read about on paper. It was the man himself, in the flesh, who was bigger than the legend. That is why the Senate is going to feel his loss for a long time. We often hear the words ``greatest generation.'' Before Tom Brokaw coined the phrase, we knew what it referred to, particularly in the Senate where some of us were privileged to serve with people such as Bob Dole, John Glenn, Fritz Hollings, and so many others. Danny was a bridge to that generation--a generation that I revered growing up in the shadows of World War II. I remember talking with my dad and hearing how he had volunteered for the Army Air Corps as war loomed over Europe. He was a pilot flying DC-3s, paratroopers, preparing to go over for the invasion, and he shared with me his regret that he came down with tuberculosis and he was released from Active Duty and, in his perception, never got his chance to defend his country. I think about just how much more complicated the prospect of going to war must have been for a young Danny Inouye--just 21 years old with dreams of becoming a surgeon, dreams interrupted by Pearl Harbor. Here he was, the son of immigrants who came to work in Hawaii's pineapple fields, his entire life he had thought of himself as a patriotic American. Then, suddenly, at a time when across the country young men were heeding the call to duty, Dan Inouye's own Nation declared him and his family alien enemies. But Dan Inouye's response was not to pull inward or to leave or forsake his country. His response was to sign up and fight for the country he loved so deeply, even at a time when his government's vision was clouded by the horror of Pearl Harbor. Fight for his country he did. He put on the uniform and showed us what both he and our country are all about. We know Dan was a hero. We know he lost his arm on the battlefield in Italy. But I never once heard Dan talk about the details of that action that would ultimately result in him being awarded the Medal of Honor. He was a quiet man who never bragged and rarely spoke of himself. But the citation speaks volumes about him and who he became on that bleak April day when Second Lieutenant Inouye and his platoon mounted a defense of a ridge guarding a critical road junction in San Terenzo, Italy. The citation says, very simply: With complete disregard for his personal safety, Second Lieutenant Inouye crawled up the treacherous slope to within five yards of the nearest machine gun and hurled two grenades, destroying the emplacement. Before the enemy could retaliate, he stood up and neutralized a second machine gun nest. Although wounded by a sniper's bullet, he continued to engage other hostile positions at close range until an exploding grenade shattered his right arm. Despite the intense pain, he refused evacuation and continued to direct his platoon until enemy resistance was broken and his men were again deployed in defensive positions. That was Dan Inouye. He was a hero whose entire life's lesson was a victory over discrimination and anger. Despite the sting of bigotry at home--he lost his arm for his country and almost his life--rather than being consumed by rancor, he became a voice for reconciliation. Because of what he had experienced growing up as a Japanese American in what was still a heavily segregated country, Dan always fought to make sure that no Americans ever felt unsafe or unwelcomed. ``This is our country,'' he famously said in his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968. I still remember that speech. I was riveted watching it on television. I was in the Navy, serving then. I was training before departing for Vietnam. It was strange, the juxtaposition of Dan Inouye's words and the hope and what he represented to the carnage in the streets, watching what seemed to be a country coming apart at the seams. But there was this young Senator, this decorated World War II veteran who spoke words that were as chilling as they were prescient. He said: The true dimension of the challenge facing us is a loss of faith. I do not mean simply a loss of religious faith . . . I mean a loss of faith in our country, in its purposes and its institutions. I mean a retreat from the responsibilities of citizenship. He went on to say famously: This is our country. Its future is what we, its citizens, will make it. . . . Putting aside hatred on the one hand and timidity on the other, let us grow fresh faith in our purpose and new vigor in our citizenship. Those words would serve us well as we think about the challenges we face right now in the Senate. That is the kind of citizenship and patriotism that Dan Inouye stood for, not just in 1968 but every day we were tested. After 9/11, Danny was as determined as anyone to bring to justice the terrorists who attacked us on that fateful day. The media said it was our Pearl Harbor. Dan Inouye remembered better than anybody the first Pearl Harbor. He was there. He lived through it. But he also had deep convictions about the historic lessons learned the hard way after the first Pearl Harbor--mistakes he refused to see repeated 60 years later. In the aftermath of September 11, Dan Inouye sounded a warning. He said: I hope that the mistakes and suffering imposed upon Japanese Americans nearly 60 years ago will not be repeated again against Arab Americans whose loyalties are now being called into question. It was a forceful defense. I think it was heard across the Nation. Dan understood our values aren't just talk. They are about the choices we make, the causes we champion, and the people we fight for. As Dan reminded us in Chicago in 1968, this is our country, and its future is what we, its citizens, make of it. He was an incredible person. During his long painful recovery at Percy Army Hospital in Michigan, Dan was down to 93 pounds and exhausted. He knew he would never be a surgeon as he once dreamed. He struggled then even to light a cigarette and he wanted to curse at his nurse. Unbowed, she taught him how to light a cigarette with one hand and said simply: ``From now on, you're going to be learning.'' Dan Inouye did learn. Happily, we can say he also taught. He taught all of us with the power of his example. During his convalescence at Percy Jones Army Hospital, he met another young lieutenant, a man by the name of Bob Dole. They became fast friends and nursed themselves back to health. About 2 short weeks ago, two ``greatest generation'' brothers, ailing and approaching their 90th birthdays, Dan Inouye and Bob Dole were still here teaching us, teaching us what is worth fighting for. I will never forget seeing Danny with his oxygen tube walking up to Bob Dole before casting his vote in the hopes of helping disabled veterans when they travel overseas. Here were these two older citizens telling the Senate, through actions and not words, that we have to be better than this place has sometimes been in recent days. Bob Dole said something about Danny that has deeper meaning now that he has left us. Bob said, over there in that corner near the door, looking at Danny: He was wounded a week from the day I was and a mile from the place I was wounded, and we ended up in the same hospital. He's a Democrat and I'm a Republican, but parties didn't make any difference. Those are bonds we ought to learn something from. Those are bonds we ought to do a better job of honoring today in this institution Dan Inouye loved so deeply. Dan Inouye was a special kind of public servant. He walked his own path. He got out of that hospital bed, returned to college under the GI bill, and went on to George Washington University for his law degree. He got himself elected to the Hawaii Territorial Legislature at the ripe old age of 30 and then on to the House of Representatives as Hawaii's first full member after it won statehood in 1959. Just 3 years later, Danny Inouye was a Senator, and eventually he would rise to become the highest ranking public official of Asian descent in U.S. history. I will never forget the critical role he played on the special committees that investigated Watergate in the 1970s and Iran-Contra in the 1980s. I was here during Iran-Contra, a freshman who approached those investigations with a certain zeal. I was in a hurry to find out the truth. But I learned from Dan Inouye that a good Senator can navigate the path to truth while taking extraordinary care to protect and nurture the national interests. So when Dan famously warned at the Iran-Contra hearings that there exists a ``shadowy government'' that can ``pursue its own ideas of the national interests, free from all checks and balances and free from the law itself,'' we all understood the gravity and truth behind those words because we respected the integrity of the statesman who spoke them. Dan had a special sense of his own responsibilities as the first Member of Congress from Hawaii. He believed in the Federal Government's ability to make a difference in people's lives. He was chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as we all know. For all the talk in the media about earmarks and pork-barrel spending, we saw in Dan how one Senator could actually advance the interests of their State and articulate a vision for that State which didn't violate anybody's sensibilities about how we ought to be spending a Federal tax dollar. He used his position unapologetically to bring home investments in Hawaii to build roads and bridges and classrooms, all of which changed people's lives on an island that most of us only thought of in the context of a vacation destination. To Dan, it wasn't a resort. It was home. It was people. As the son of a Japanese immigrant who came to work in those pineapple fields, Dan needed to make no apologies about using the Federal Government to make life for the people he represented better. It was a perspective that endeared him to his colleagues on both sides of the aisle--and no one more so than Republican Senator Ted Stevens. They became like brothers. Theirs was a friendship that stood the test of time. I often heard the stories from Dan or from Ted--whom I got to know well--about how they would travel to various parts of the world to see how America was investing its funds and how their friendship simply grew during the course of those journeys together. Theirs was a friendship that stood the test of time. This place would be a lot better off if we could forge bonds the way Dan and Ted did since the 1960s. They didn't capitulate. They didn't lose their values. They compromised, and they always put what was best--in the case of Dan, Hawaii, and in the case of Ted, Alaska, and in both their cases, the country--ahead of any kind of partisan squabbling. Danny Inouye lived a full and remarkable life, and we will miss him dearly. He was proud of his Japanese heritage, proud of his roots, and proud of his service as a champion of veterans and veterans' rights. He loved our troops. It is fitting that a building at the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research now bears his name. I often marveled at how hard he fought to regain his health in the face of mounting odds. He died with no regrets. ``Aloha'' was his last word. Hawaii misses Daniel Inouye, America misses him, and our thoughts are with his wife Irene and his son Daniel Ken, Jr., who is a great friend of my stepson Johnny Heinz, and also the rest of his family at this difficult time. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on December 5, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej of Thailand celebrated his 85th birthday, and this year marks the 66th year of his reign. I would like to mark the occasion by sending warm wishes to King Bhumibol and to all the people of Thailand as they celebrate this happy event. The United States and Thailand have a long, rich, and growing partnership that has brought tremendous benefits to the people of both nations. Our bilateral relationship dates back 179 years and Thailand is our longest-standing diplomatic partner in East Asia. Over almost 60 years as modern treaty allies, the United States and Thailand have created flourishing business and cultural ties, underpinned by our shared values of democracy and rule of law. Our relationship has been cemented through our work together to face regional and global security challenges, often at great cost to our two peoples. Overseeing and guiding this has been King Bhumibol Adulyadej. His support for the relationship between the United States and Thailand has been immeasurable, and the respect with which he is regarded in Washington is correspondingly great. I send my congratulations to King Bhumibol Adulyadej and to all the people of Thailand.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we currently have over 400,000 children in our foster care system due to abuse or neglect by their biological families, with 104,000 eligible for adoption. Tragically every year nearly 28,000 of these children age out of our foster care system with no place to call home. On average, foster children spend over 3 years in the system and around 16 percent languish in the foster care system for over 5 years. Only around 3 percent start college and even fewer finish their degree. We must continue working to connect children in our foster system to a safe, loving, and permanent home while also doing more to address their educational outcomes. I am greatly concerned that too many of our Nation's foster youth are unable to appropriately access critical Federal programs that provide assistance to help increase their educational opportunities. Higher education can hold the key to a future of stability and it is unacceptable that many foster youth who are eligible for higher education funds, such as Education and Training Vouchers, ETV, and support through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, are never told about these programs. This is why I have worked with my colleagues to introduce a bipartisan bill to direct the Department of Education to fully utilize the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, as a tool to notify foster youth of all Federal funds which may be available to support their pursuit of higher education, and include information specifically for foster youth on their agency website. The Foster Youth Higher Education Opportunities Act will automate the notification to foster youth of their potential eligibility for programs that serve as a lifeline to a better future. I would like to recognize Senators Inhofe, Franken, Levin, Murray, Cardin, Blumenthal, Begich, Rockefeller, and Landrieu as original cosponsors of this bill. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we currently have over 400,000 children in our foster care system due to abuse or neglect by their biological families, with 104,000 eligible for adoption. Tragically every year nearly 28,000 of these children age out of our foster care system with no place to call home. On average, foster children spend over 3 years in the system and around 16 percent languish in the foster care system for over 5 years. Only around 3 percent start college and even fewer finish their degree. We must continue working to connect children in our foster system to a safe, loving, and permanent home while also doing more to address their educational outcomes. I am greatly concerned that too many of our Nation's foster youth are unable to appropriately access critical Federal programs that provide assistance to help increase their educational opportunities. Higher education can hold the key to a future of stability and it is unacceptable that many foster youth who are eligible for higher education funds, such as Education and Training Vouchers, ETV, and support through the John H. Chafee Foster Care Independence Program, are never told about these programs. This is why I have worked with my colleagues to introduce a bipartisan bill to direct the Department of Education to fully utilize the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, FAFSA, as a tool to notify foster youth of all Federal funds which may be available to support their pursuit of higher education, and include information specifically for foster youth on their agency website. The Foster Youth Higher Education Opportunities Act will automate the notification to foster youth of their potential eligibility for programs that serve as a lifeline to a better future. I would like to recognize Senators Inhofe, Franken, Levin, Murray, Cardin, Blumenthal, Begich, Rockefeller, and Landrieu as original cosponsors of this bill. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President I come to the floor today to remember William Meehan, an ``icon'' of Somerset, in the words of former fire chief Steven Rivard. He was a loving, and beloved, husband to JoAnne, brother to Robert and John, father to John and Steve, and grandfather to Jake, Owen, and Liam. William is remembered by those who knew him best as an impassioned cheerleader and reliable presence on the sidelines of his grandchildren's sports games, as a thoughtful and compassionate voice on the Board of Selectmen, as an affable, warm family man armed with a lively Irish humor. William was an anchor of his family and of his town. His care for his town shone through his work and was reflected in his daily life. The people of Somerset recall a dedicated public servant who embodied the most noble qualities of a community advocate while eschewing the divisive demagoguery that too often finds its way into politics. In his 15 years as one of three selectmen for his town, he proved time and again that he was more interested in understanding the concerns of others and finding a just solution to any problem than he was in political bickering. And his example inspired those around him, with his son Michael venturing into public service and actually serving in my office for many years with great distinction. In his last year on the board of selectmen, William was a part of the opening of the Veterans Memorial Bridge, a decade's long project to connect Fall River with Somerset over the Taunton River. And he was intimately involved in the process that put into motion plans for the new Somerset Berkley Regional High School. His interest was always in community over conflict, in people rather than politics, and that is to what he devoted his life. Friends remember William having lunch every day with peers or first responders or community leaders, and he would often be found chatting with neighbors and storekeepers around town or among the stands at local sporting events. He was a sportsman himself, with baseball second only to family and community. When he wasn't coaching Somerset Little League, as he did for many years, he could be found out on the golf course. I understand that William would make time each day after lunch to venture to the park and watch the boats sailing the Taunton River. I imagine the gentle breeze off the water, the parade of ships coming and going with the sun high in the sky, and William sitting along the shore facing the water, breathing in the air and taking in the moment. We won't see him there any longer, but when we look out at the boats drifting by, we will think of William and remember the goodness he shared with the people of Somerset and beyond. To JoAnne and William's family, I extend my deepest condolences. And to William, I wish him eternal rest watching over his family and all those he cared about so deeply. And I wish him the same peace he found along the river's edge.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Toby Hyman has become something of an institution in the Senate over the course of her 17 odd years of service in the Office of the Senate Chief Counsel for Employment. I understand that she has consistently and tirelessly devoted herself to ensuring fairness for both Senate employees and their offices, helping them sort through anything from day-to-day concerns that arise to courtroom arguments to union disputes, even in the midst of an anthrax attack on her own office. Those who know her best say that she displays compassion for employers and employees alike, a deep understanding of employment law and conflict, and great skill resolving disputes and achieving fair outcomes for all involved parties. By all accounts, the Senate body is better today for her efforts, which is why her retirement is received with bittersweet, much deserved well-wishes for the future by her colleagues. Before her time here, Toby spent 20 years as a fine attorney at the prestigious Proskauer Rose firm in New York City. Prior to that, she served as the first female law clerk for the Honorable District Court Judge John F. Dooling, Jr. And prior to that, she was a fine young citizen of the great State of Massachusetts. Toby grew up in a family like so many in Boston. She is a proud product of Boston's public schools, including the Girls' Latin School in Roxbury, who excelled in her studies and earned admittance to the government program at Radcliffe College, from which she graduated magna cum laude. Toby then continued to impress her friends and peers at Harvard Law School, where she performed as an able editor of the Harvard Law Review and, once again, graduated with distinction. To afford these years of schooling, Toby simultaneously pursued a degree in Jewish Education from Hebrew College in order to earn money teaching in Hebrew schools. She wanted to give back to her community, pass on an education that she so enjoyed to the coming generation, and work with children, all while making a little money to sustain her during college. And so she made it happen. Pleased parents affectionately labeled one of her classes the ``Hebrew Sesame Street.'' Service to others--standing up for fairness and justice--has been a common thread running through Toby's life. From her days back home in her native Massachusetts, to her career in New York City, to her visit to the Soviet Union in the late 1970s where she greeted oppressed Soviet Jews with encouragement and a helping hand, Toby has treated people with compassion and respect and has stood up for their rights and dignity. Most recently, during her time as an advocate for us all here in the Senate family, she worked with our offices to ensure a good and fair relationship between employers and employees. So it is no surprise that Toby intends for the next chapter of her life to involve volunteer work teaching young children. She will continue in the example she has set throughout her life and career as an educator, mediator, and advocate for fairness. I thank Toby for dedicating so many years of her life to service in the Senate and look forward to all that she has yet to accomplish--and wish her congratulations on a well deserved retirement.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended until the majority leader comes to the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Baucus, is tied up right now with a scheduling conflict, working on the fiscal cliff issue, so he asked me if I would kick off the debate with respect to the Russia PNTR, H.R. 6156, the Russia and Moldova Jackson-Vanik Repeal and Sergei Magnitsky Rule of Law Accountability Act of 2012. I am very happy to do this on behalf of Senator Baucus. We share a great partnership together as chairman of our two committees focused on trade and on the relationship with Russia, both of which come together in the legislation today. I would be remiss, however, if I didn't say a word about what consumed us yesterday with the vote on the disabilities treaty. It is certainly a moment that stands out in my memories of my time in the Senate. I can't think of any other time when a former majority leader has come to the floor--a veteran--who sought to have his colleagues join together in supporting something that would improve the lives of people with disabilities. I am not going to go back and reargue it now. That would be fruitless and I think not helpful to where we want to move to. What we want to move to is a place where we can pass this. I can say--I believe this--I can say to Senator Robert Dole that we will pass the disabilities treaty and we will pass it, I believe, early next year. I base that on the fact that some Senators had difficulties with the fact that we are in a lameduck session and they had signed a letter which, regrettably, some of them didn't digest completely but nevertheless signed, saying they wouldn't take up a treaty in a lameduck session and I think some felt compelled by that and others felt compelled by other things. But here is what I think we can do. Starting next year, I believe we can move to additional hearings that can make crystal clear to all colleagues the state, as it may not have been yesterday in some cases, with respect to both the law and the facts as it applies to persons with disabilities. I pledge now to make certain that within the resolution of advice and consent, any concern that was not adequately addressed--I personally believe they were addressed--it is possible we can find the language that will address the concerns of any Senator who yesterday felt--whether it was the United Nations or homeschooling, I believe those things can be adequately addressed. I do know a number of Senators said they would be prepared to vote for it after we are out of the lameduck session, and I am confident we will pass the disabilities treaty in a different atmosphere and in a different time. One of the things I learned from my senior colleague Ted Kennedy, who did this for so many years, is that perseverance pays off when the issue is worth fighting for and we always have another day and another vote in the Senate. That always affords us the opportunity to make things right. We are certainly going to try and do that. This PNTR-Magnitsky bill is, in fact, one of those opportunities where we can start to put the Senate on the right track, and I think all of us look forward to the chance to be able to do that. This bill passed the House of Representatives by a huge margin of 365 to 43. What it would do is establish permanent normal trade relations for Russia, and it would require the identification and imposition of sanctions on individuals who are responsible for the detention, abuse and death of Sergei Magnitsky and other gross violations of human rights. Let me make my best argument, if I can, in favor of the bill, and then I wish to turn the discussion over to the ranking member, Senator Hatch, to present his case for passage. After that, the Presiding Officer of the Senate at this moment, the Senator from Maryland, Mr. Cardin, will lead a discussion of the provisions of the act related to honoring the memory of Sergei Magnitsky and combating the types of human rights abuses that led to his premature and tragic death. I wish to congratulate the Presiding Officer and salute him for his significant efforts. He has been dogged, and that component of this legislation would not be here today if it weren't for the efforts of the Senator from Maryland. Chairman Baucus will then have been able to return to manage the rest of the consideration on the floor at that time. As the Presiding Officer knows, Chairman Baucus and I lead the two Senate committees that are charged with overseeing the twin pillars of America's unique role in the world. Our commitment to open, transparent and free markets and our commitment to democracy and open discourse is a force for international peace. We believe our global economic interests and our foreign policy values are closely tied together. They should be closely tied together. That is why we urge our colleagues to seize this opportunity that Russia's accession to the World Trade Organization presents for both job creation and our ability to bind Russia to a rule-based system of trade and dispute resolution. Granting Russia permanent normal trade relations is as much in our interests as it is in theirs. Frankly, that is what ought to guide the choices we make in the Senate. The upside of this policy is clear on an international landscape. It is one that rarely offers this kind of what I would call, frankly, a kind of one-sided trade deal--one that promises billions of dollars in new U.S. exports and thousands of new jobs in America. That is certainly in our interests. Today, Russia is the world's seventh largest economy. Having officially joined the WTO on August 22, Russia is now required by its membership in the WTO to lower tariffs and open to new imports. That sudden jump in market access is, frankly, important to any country that is the first country through the door, and if we don't pass this trade legislation, we will not be among those countries. I can tell my colleagues Massachusetts, speaking for my State, welcomes access to the Russian market, and we want that access to be played out on a level playing field. The State of Massachusetts exported $120 million worth of goods to Russia last year, and those exports obviously support hundreds of jobs. But if we don't pass this bill, those exports will face competition from other countries that will not pay the same high-level tariff we currently pay. Let's take one specific example. Massachusetts exported $18.5 million in medical equipment to Russia in 2011, but we face strong competition from China, which has increased its share of the Russian market in each of the last 10 years. We don't shy away from strong competition, but we want that competition to be able to be played out on an even playing field. As long as we don't have normal permanent trade relations with Russia, we are disadvantaging ourselves. It simply doesn't make sense. Since joining the WTO, Russia agreed to reduce average tariffs on medical equipment to 4.3 percent and to cut its top tariffs from 15 percent down to 7 percent. As it stands now, that is a benefit China will get and we will not. It simply doesn't make sense to anybody. To grant Russia PNTR status requires us to repeal the 1974 Jackson- Vanik amendment. A lot of our staff members, I hasten to say, were not even born back when Jackson-Vanik was put in place. Many of our colleagues and a lot of our staff have studied the Soviet Union but have never experienced that period of time. What we are living with is a complete and total relic of a bygone era. Congress passed Jackson-Vanik during the Cold War to pressure the Soviet Union to allow Russian Jews to be able to emigrate freely. It was very successful. It worked, and as a result, the Kremlin worked with us and others to help Jews be able to emigrate. As a result, every single U.S. President has, regardless of political party, waived Jackson-Vanik's requirements for Russia since 1994. The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee, the National Conference on Soviet Jewry, and the Government of Israel now all support the repeal of Jackson-Vanik for Russia. With too many Americans still searching for jobs all across our country, our manufacturing sector needs every boost it can get. We cannot afford to retain Jackson-Vanik any longer. This is in America's interest. Despite progress, our trade deficit remains too wide, and I think that seizing this opportunity to increase exports to Russia is one very obvious way to be able to make concrete progress in reducing that trade deficit. U.S. exports to Russia total more than $9 billion a year. Establishing PNTR for Russia could double that number in just 5 years, according to one recent study. That could mean thousands of new jobs across every sector of our economy. With the Russian economy's impressive growth, it is actually--Russia is expected to outgrow Germany by about 2029, so it is steadily growing in the world marketplace. The long-run gains for everybody would be even greater. None of us is going to suggest that every issue with respect to Russia has been resolved. We know there are still points of tension, and some of them in the foreign policy area are very relevant today, for instance, over Syria. We understand that. We hope recent events in Syria may be moving Russia and the United States closer in terms of our thinking. But it is only a good thing to bring Russia into a rules- based system with mechanisms for peaceful, transparent dispute resolution. There is no debate--and I think the Presiding Officer knows this full well--that the very tragic and senseless death of anticorruption lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, who died while in Russian custody--is simply unacceptable. It is appalling, and it highlights a human rights problem that has grown in its scope, not diminished. It is one we hope to be able to resolve with good relationships and good discussions. Senator Cardin, the sponsor of that legislation in the House and in the Senate, is going to speak shortly about it, and I will leave him to describe in full the nature of that particular component of this bill. But suffice it to say that human rights, democracy, and transparency activists in Russia favor the passage of constructive human rights legislation in our Congress, and they also see WTO membership and increased trade for the United States as an avenue toward progress. So there is no contradiction in what is happening. They understand, as we all should, that repealing Jackson-Vanik is not a blanket acceptance of any particular policy or approach in Russia. It is certainly not an acceptance of what happened with respect to Sergei Magnitsky and that is because of the Magnitsky legislation. Repealing the bill--repealing Jackson-Vanik--is not an economic giveaway to Russia. To the contrary, it represents, as I have described, an enormous opportunity for the United States to compete on a fair playing field with other countries and to create more jobs in the United States. By establishing PNTR with Russia, U.S. businesses will win increased market access without giving up anything in return. There would be no tariff changes, no market concessions, nothing. It, frankly, diminishes the willingness of some hard-liners in Russia to distort the current dialog and to distort the possibilities of a better relationship, which we want with Russia. By taking this away, we will reduce the abuse of Jackson-Vanik as a rhetorical tool to rally anti- American sentiment in Russia. I believe we can do something very important here today and both our economy and our foreign policy will be better for the effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Well, we obviously differ on that. Let me emphasize the importance of the 328 groups, and I have submitted that for the Record. We are going to vote in a few minutes, and we are going to vote on a treaty that I regret to say some people are making controversial when, in fact, it really isn't controversial. What this treaty says is very simple: It just says that people can't discriminate against the disabled. It says other countries have to do what we did 22 years ago when we set the example for the world and passed the Americans with Disabilities Act. In four simple words, this treaty says to other countries that don't respect the rights of the disabled: Be more like us. That is what we are asking people to do. It doesn't require any changes to American law, zero. This has no tying of the hands of America. There isn't one law in the United States that would be negatively affected. But it will push, it will leverage, it will require other countries by their commitment to be held accountable to the standard that we have set and take our gold standard and extend it to the rest of the world. There are three reasons I have heard that we can't do this. When I hear them, I am reminded of what I learned when I was a prosecutor, which was quite a few years ago now. I learned: If the facts are against you, then argue the law. If the law is against you, then argue the facts. If both are against you, just make it up. Well, that is exactly what is happening here. Neither the law nor the facts support any argument that has been made on the other side of this treaty. Accordingly, we are facing an entirely fictitious set of arguments--on abortion, on homeschooling, on lameduck sessions. All of their arguments have been contradicted by the facts in the law, and let me document that. This treaty is based on the Americans with Disabilities Act. We passed that 20 years ago. The father of the act is sitting here, the Senator from Iowa. In all those 20 years, has any child been separated from a parent because of the ADA? No. Has homeschooling been hurt? No. In fact it has grown and is flourishing across the Nation. How is it possible a treaty, that according to our Supreme Court offers no recourse, no change in American law, no access to American courts, how is it possible that such a treaty could threaten anybody in our country? The answer is simple: It doesn't and it can't. Well, let's go through the arguments one by one. First, they say it would undermine our sovereignty. I have heard several people suggest that, the laws governing the disabled. Well, that is wrong. Senator Lee just admitted it doesn't affect any law in the United States. All it does is create a committee on the rights of persons with disabilities. What can this committee do? All it can do is review reports and make a suggestion. Are we scared, in the United States of America, of someone making a suggestion to us about how we might do something? It has no recourse in the court, no legal standing. The Foreign Relations Committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to make it crystal clear. What are we afraid of? That the committee would give us this advice? The second misconception is that this will allow the Federal Government, acting under U.N. instructions, to determine what is best for children with disabilities. Again, that is just flat wrong. The treaty does not give the Federal Government or any State government any new powers with respect to children with disabilities. It doesn't change the balance of power between Federal and State government. It doesn't require any change to existing State or Federal law. The Justice Department, former Republican Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee that any assertion to the contrary is incorrect. Our committee even included language in the resolution of advice and consent to absolutely crystallize those limitations. Finally, there are those who argue that a lameduck session is an inappropriate time for Senators to consider this treaty. Well, my colleagues, please, since the 1970s alone, the Senate has approved treaties during lameduck sessions a total of 19 times. There is nothing special or different about a lameduck. It is a session of the Congress. Just as we are going to consider important fiscal matters, we should consider other important matters. Our constituents expect us to do our jobs. There is no difference between a lameduck, a dead duck, or a regular duck. We ought to be here doing our jobs. More than any of the straw men, though, that we would have to deal with in this debate, there is, in fact, something much bigger at stake. This treaty and this vote will say a great deal about who we are in the Senate and who we are as a country. In the nearly 30 years I have been here, I think this is the first time I have seen a former majority leader of the Senate come to the Senate floor for a vote. It is certainly the first time that I have seen it happen when he had every right to be at home at age 89 taking care of his health, but that is not Bob Dole. Almost 70 years ago, when he came home to Kansas from the battlefields of Italy in a full body cast, people said that Bob would never have to work another day in his life. That is what they said; he was a hero; he had made his contribution. But Bob Dole worked every single day to stand, to walk, and to use his arms again. He made himself get out of that bed, and he made himself a public servant and a U.S. Senator and the Republican nominee for President in 1996. But his greatest pride was passing the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bob Dole, why is he here? He is not here because he is here to advocate for the United Nations, and certainly this man who served his country is not here because he doesn't want to defend the sovereignty of the United States of America. He is here because he wants to know that other countries will come to treat the disabled the way we do. He is here because he wants to know that when a disabled American veteran, our wounded warriors, travel overseas, they are treated with the same dignity and respect they receive at home. That is why an 89- year-old veteran, 1 week removed from Bethesda Naval Hospital, comes back to the Senate on an early December day. Because it matters. What we do in the Senate matters not just to us but to people all across the globe, and maybe some people here need to be reminded of that. This is not about politics, this is not about ideology, this is about people. This treaty helps thousands of vets, men and women, who paid the price of devotion to our country with their limbs--with their limbs-- and they struggle every day to get up, button their shirts, get out of the house. Some of them struggle to be able to share in life as all of us are able to share in it. I met one of them yesterday, Army Afghan vet Dan Berschinski, a double amputee as a result of the war in Afghanistan. He has fought back, and he has recovered enough to create a small business. Here is what he said, this West Point grad of 2007: I'm proud to be able to walk using prosthetic legs. Yet obstacles that might seem inconsequential to the fully able- bodied, like sidewalk curbs and stairs, take on a whole new meaning for veterans like me who struggle to walk, or use a wheelchair. Very fortunately for me, the United States leads the world in accessibility and equality of opportunity for the disabled. Unfortunately, the advantages granted here at home--that allow people like me to live fulfilling, independent lives--don't exist in much of the rest of the world. Eight months after being wounded in combat, and while still a patient at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, I joined-- And I am speaking for him-- a few friends in a trip to South Africa to watch the World Cup. There I found myself in a different country, with no legs, a brand-new wheelchair and a lot of apprehension. While I should have been enjoying this once-in-a-lifetime trip, I was constantly worried about my ability to get around. Would the restaurant have an accessible bathroom or would I have to go without it? Would my wheelchair be able to fit in the hotel doorway or would I need to be carried into the lobby? Those are the kinds of questions we take for granted here in America, but, unfortunately, the accessibility measures we enjoy here simply aren't present in many other countries. That is why Bob Dole and CPT Dan Berschinski want us to approve this treaty. I have heard nothing from the other side that outweighs the reality of that consideration for not just veterans but all persons with disabilities. What is at stake here is big. The outcome here will not, despite the fear, change one election here in the Senate. It is not going to decide one of the primaries that I fear are distorting the politics of our country. But you know what, it will decide whether some people live or die in another country, where there is no accountability and only United States values and standards are the difference to the prospects of someone with a disability. In some countries children are disposed of--killed--because they have a disability. Our treaty can actually help prevent that. In some countries children do not get to go to school and certainly have no prospects of a future simply because they are born with a disability. This treaty will help offer hope where there is none. The United States could actually sit at the table and make the difference for people with disabilities because we are willing to push our values and hold other nations accountable to meet our standards--the gold standard of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Mr. President, I have heard some of my Republican colleagues talk many times about making the rest of the world more like America. I hate to think that now, when we have an opportunity to do that, they will retreat from that core conviction and oppose a treaty modeled on the United States' example which has no recourse in American courts and no effect on American law. This treaty isn't about American behavior, except to the degree that it influences other countries to be more like us. This treaty is about the behavior of other countries and their willingness to raise their treatment of people with disabilities to our level. It is that simple. This treaty isn't about changing America, it is a treaty to change the world to be more like America. So why join, I have heard my colleagues ask several times. If it doesn't have recourse in the law, why join? I will tell you why: Because we can sit at the table and affect the lives of our citizens by pushing other countries upwards; because we gain credibility and accelerate change through our advocacy by being part of a process; because it is good for American businesses, which can sell products and services as other nations raise their standards and need our expertise to meet their goals. That is why, incidentally, the United States Chamber of Commerce supports this treaty as do a huge number of businesses. Why support it? Because George H. W. Bush started this process and President George W. Bush signed the treaty to participate in it. And because, in the end, this treaty and our participation in it--and this is the most important--can improve the quality of life for people with disabilities. To join it is to keep faith with the men and women who have suffered grievous disability in defense of our Nation, and we owe them nothing less. This treaty is not about changing America, it is about America changing the world. But a vote here is a test of this institution. This vote is a test of whether the Senate, which passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act, is still capable of voting to change things, not to mention sending a message that could change the world. I ask my colleagues to do for the world what they have done for America, walk down the aisle here for millions everywhere who cannot walk and make a statement; raise your voice and vote for millions who are voiceless in their own lands; stand for those who cannot stand for themselves. This is not about the United Nations, this is about common humanity. This vote is to test to see whether the Senate will stand for those who cannot see or hear and whether Senators can hear the truth and see the facts. Please don't let Captain Berschinski down. Don't let Senator Bob Dole down. Most importantly, don't let the Senate and the country down. Approve this treaty.

Mr. KERRY. Over 328 veterans and disability organizations, all of our veterans organizations, who deal with people with disabilities and challenges support this treaty and believe it will make a difference. So when the Senator says: I don't believe it will make a difference, every working member of the disabilities community disagrees with the Senator. I would just say to him respectfully that the facts are clear. He said this ties our hands. It doesn't tie our hands. Senator Lee came to the floor earlier, and he agreed this doesn't require any change of U.S. law. So I would say to my friend, there is no tying of the hands. We understand the fears people have, but I think it is important to try to decide this on the basis of fact. I yield to the Senator on his time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just say to the Senator from Arizona before he leaves, the Senator and I have engaged on these issues for some years now, and we have disagreed respectfully and in a friendly way. I would say to him, very respectfully, that there is no contradiction in the position of the proponents of this bill. While I understand what he said about China, the fact is that because China has signed up--and Russia and other countries--if we were a party to this and at the table discussing it, we would have greater leverage in order to be able to advance the rights of persons in China and elsewhere. Now, don't take that from me, I would say to the Senator from Arizona. Guongcheng Chen is the blind activist for civil rights in China who has sought refuge in America for a brief period of time. His family has suffered in China, and he has written a letter to us. He says: Dear Senators, I am writing you to personally ask for your support for the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. As you know, my work on civil rights began with trying to ensure that people with disabilities in my home country of China were afforded the same rights as everyone else. The CRPD is making this idea real in significant ways around the world today. He goes on to say: I am hopeful that you will support ratification and allow others to benefit from these triumphs. And he is referring to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the other things we have done. I ask unanimous consent that this document of organizations supporting the treaty be placed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the Senator from Arizona--it is my understanding that there is no other speaker on the Senator's side. I would simply ask if we could have an additional 5 minutes on this side, if the Senator would not object, and that would bring us to the vote at noon.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the time allegation?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield the Senator from Arizona 7 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I renew my request now. We have had about four successive Democrats speak. There is nobody here from the other side. I do not think it is fair to have our time docked as a result. So I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to the opponents.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Iowa.

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

Mr. KERRY. No, let me make clear to the Senator, I have not said it does nothing. I have said it does not require a change in American law. I have said that it does not obligate the United States to a new set of standards or anything different from what we do today. I have said it does not allow anybody access to the Federal courts. That is different from saying it doesn't do anything. If it didn't do anything, I would not be here either. Nor would George Bush have signed this. Nor would George Herbert Walker Bush have begun the negotiations. This is not a Democrat-inspired treaty. This is a universally accepted set of principles about how we would like to see people in the rest of the world treat people with disabilities. There is more to be said about that, and there is more to be said. I want my colleagues to speak about why we are here. Let me recognize, if I can, the Senator from Arizona?--no, I will hold off on that, if I may. Let me recognize the Senator from New Mexico for 5 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. I would say to the Senator, for a number of reasons: That allows the United States to sit at the table and actually advocate on behalf of our veterans, disabled veterans, who travel abroad.

Mr. KERRY. Again, the Senator has acknowledged that it does not become customary law; as a consequence, it has to somehow change. Within this--the Senator will agree that because the treaty adopts, in the body of the treaty, the statement that this is not self-executing and the Supreme Court has held that a nonexecuting treaty--let me just reference the specific case--Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, a 2004 case--the Supreme Court said it is dispositive. Nonself-executing declaration is dispositive. The Court noted that the United States ratified a prior thing then--and said, ``it does not create obligations enforceable in Federal courts.'' So there is no obligation created. The Senator then said: Why would we do this? Because we are the gold standard, and every other country is encouraged--encouraged; we cannot require them, but they are encouraged--to raise their standard to U.S. standards. Why would the Senator resist? I know the Senator and many of his colleagues argue we want other countries to be more like America. This is a treaty that, in fact, embraces that notion that they must be more like America. Why would the Senator not embrace that?

Mr. KERRY. How much on the opponent's side?

Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?