John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote to invoke cloture on the conference report to accompany the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, H.R. 3183. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask that my statement and accompanying documents submitted this afternoon be printed in the Record. The documents follow.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I wish to discuss S. 1707, the ``Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009,'' which President Obama has committed to signing into law this week. The legislation is a result of negotiations between the Senate and House of Representatives reconciling our respective bills that passed earlier this summer. The final version passed unanimously in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, sending a very strong message of the desire of the U.S. Congress to strengthen our relationship with the people of Pakistan through a long-term pledge of economic and development assistance. I hope that over time it will fundamentally change America's relationship with the people of Pakistan. I especially want to thank my colleagues Senator Lugar and Representative Berman for their partnership in crafting this bill and their ongoing leadership on this issue. It is hard to overstate the importance to our national security of getting our relationship with Pakistan right. The status quo has not brought success, the stakes could not be higher, and we have little choice but to think big. That is why the Obama Administration and many of us in Congress saw the need for a bold, new strategy for Pakistan. The ``Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act'' is a centerpiece of this new approach, which is why President Obama asked Congress to pass the measure. This Act establishes a legislative foundation for a strengthened partnership between the United States and Pakistan, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through sustainable economic development, strengthening democracy and the rule of law, and combating terrorism and extremism. It is the intent of Congress to strengthen the long-term people-to- people relationship between the United States and Pakistan by investing directly in the needs of the Pakistani people. The overall level of economic assistance authorized annually by this legislation is tripled over FY 2008 levels, with the bulk of aid intended for projects such as schools, roads, medical clinics, and infrastructure development. The legislation authorizes $1.5 billion annually for fiscal years 2010 to 2014 and recommends an additional five years of funding to demonstrate a long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. This legislation is an important first step in turning the page in our relationship with Pakistan and building mutual trust. It is a prime example of ``smart power'' because it uses both economic and security aid to achieve an overall effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. But this bill is not a silver bullet. It provides powerful tools--but these tools are only as effective as the policy-makers who wield them. We must approach this endeavor with a large dose of humility. Our leverage is limited. This bill aims to increase that leverage significantly. But we should be realistic about what we can accomplish--Americans can influence events in Pakistan, but we cannot and should not decide them. Ultimately, the true decision-makers are the people and leaders of Pakistan. There have been serious concerns in Pakistan in recent days over the perceived intent of this bill. We have spoken with Pakistani government officials, including Foreign Minister Qureshi and Ambassador Haqqani, to make sure we understand the nature of these concerns and to clear up any misunderstandings. To clear up any lingering confusion and to reiterate Congress' intent with respect to this legislation, Chairman Berman and I are submitting a ``Joint Explanatory Statement'' for the Congressional Record. The purpose of the Joint Explanatory Statement is to facilitate accurate interpretation of the text and to ensure faithful implementation of its provisions in accordance with the intentions of the legislation. As the Joint Explanatory Statement makes clear, the legislation does not seek in any way to compromise Pakistan's sovereignty, impinge on Pakistan's national security interests, or micromanage any aspect of Pakistani military or civilian operations. There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid. The only requirements on this funding are financial accountability measures that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch, to ensure that this assistance supports programs that most benefit the Pakistani people. The certifications in the Act regarding certain limited forms of security assistance track very closely with previous Congressional legislation. The conditions set forth in the bill are reasonable and should be easy for any nation receiving American aid to meet. They align with and reinforce the publicly-articulated positions of the democratically-elected Pakistani government and Pakistani military leaders. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism. Mr. President, I ask to have printed in the Record this Joint Explanatory Statement along with letters of support for S. 1707, passed and printed in the Record of Thursday, September 24, 2009, from Secretary of State Clinton, Secretary of Defense Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mullen. The material follows. Joint Explanatory Statement--Enhanced Partnership With Pakistan Act of 2009 Sen. John F. Kerry and Congressman Howard Berman The following is an explanation of S. 1707, the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009. The final text of the legislation reflects an agreement reached by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. The purpose of this Explanatory Statement is to facilitate accurate interpretation of the text and to ensure faithful implementation of its provisions in accordance with the intentions of the legislation. The core intent of the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act is to demonstrate the American people's long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan. The United States values its friendship with the Pakistani people and honors the great sacrifices made by Pakistani security forces in the fight against extremism, and the legislation reflects the goals shared by our two governments. The legislation does not seek in any way to compromise Pakistan's sovereignty, impinge on Pakistan's national security interests, or micromanage any aspect of Pakistani military or civilian operations. There are no conditions on Pakistan attached to the authorization of $7.5 billion in non-military aid. The only requirements on this funding are financial accountability measures that Congress is imposing on the U.S. executive branch, to ensure that this assistance supports programs that most benefit the Pakistani people. Summary of Congressional Intent The Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act of 2009 (the ``Act'') establishes a legislative foundation for a strengthened partnership between the United States and Pakistan, based on a shared commitment to improving the living conditions of the people of Pakistan through strengthening democracy and the rule of law, sustainable economic development, and combating terrorism and extremism. It is the intent of Congress to strengthen the long-term people-to-people relationship between the United States and Pakistan by investing directly in the needs of the Pakistani people. This legislation is intended to fortify a lasting partnership with Pakistan based on mutual trust. The overall level of economic assistance authorized annually by this legislation is tripled over FY 2008 U.S. funding levels, with the bulk of aid intended for projects such as schools, roads, medical clinics, and infrastructure development. The funds directly authorized by this Act--$1.5 billion in economic and development assistance annually for five years, with a similar amount envisioned for a subsequent five years--place no conditions on the Government of Pakistan. The only requirements are accountability measures placed on the United States executive branch to ensure that the aid directly benefits the Pakistani people. This Act fully recognizes and respects the independence of Pakistan as a sovereign nation. The purpose of this Act is to forge a closer collaborative relationship between Pakistan and the United States, not to dictate the national policy or impinge on the sovereignty of Pakistan in any way. Any interpretation of this Act which suggests that the United States does not fully recognize and respect the sovereignty of Pakistan would be directly contrary to Congressional intent. The certifications in the Act regarding certain limited forms of security assistance are consistent with previous Congressional legislation regarding security assistance to Pakistan and other nations. In all cases, they align with the aims of, and serve to reinforce the publicly-articulated positions of, the democratically-elected Government of Pakistan, and Pakistani military leaders, to combat extremists and militants. Sections 1-4: Strengthening a Relationship Founded on Mutual Respect Sections 1-4 establish the framework and context for the legislative provisions that follow. The Findings and the Statement of Principles demonstrate an unequivocal appreciation for the friendship of the Pakistani people, and for the sacrifices made by the Pakistani security forces and people in fighting extremism. The Findings in Section 3 include: Section 3(1): ``Congress finds the following: The people of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the United States share a long history of friendship and comity, and the interests of both nations are well-served by strengthening and deepening this friendship.'' Section 3(4): ``Pakistan is a major non-NATO ally of the United States and has been a valuable partner in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban, but much more remains to be accomplished by both nations. The struggle against al Qaeda, the Taliban, and affiliated terrorist groups has led to the deaths of several thousand Pakistani civilians and members of the security forces of Pakistan over the past seven years.'' The Statement of Principles in Section 4 include: Section 4(1): ``Pakistan is a critical friend and ally to the United States, both in times of strife and in times of peace, and the two countries share many common goals, including combating terrorism and violent radicalism, solidifying democracy and rule of law in Pakistan, and promoting the social and economic development of Pakistan.'' Section 4(4): ``The United States supports Pakistan's struggle against extremist elements and recognizes the profound sacrifice made by Pakistan in the fight against terrorism, including the loss of more than 1,900 soldiers and police since 2001 in combat with al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other extremist and terrorist groups.'' Title I: Democratic, Economic and Development Assistance for Pakistan This Title contains the core intention of this legislation: To make a long-term commitment to the people of Pakistan by tripling non-military assistance, free of any conditions on the Pakistani government. The purposes set forth for the $7.5 billion that is authorized here are all intended to reflect the expressed priorities of the Pakistani people. Specifically, Section 101(a) provides that: ``The President is authorized to provide assistance to Pakistan to support the consolidation of democratic institutions; to support the expansion of rule of law, build the capacity of government institutions, and promote respect for internationally-recognized human rights; to promote economic freedoms and sustainable economic development; to support investment in people, including those displaced in on-going counterinsurgency operations; and to strengthen public diplomacy.'' The funds authorized under Title I are intended to be used to work with and benefit Pakistani organizations. Specifically, Section 101(c)(3) provides that: ``The President is encouraged, as appropriate, to utilize Pakistani firms and community and local nongovernmental organizations in Pakistan, including through host country contracts, and to work with local leaders to provide assistance under this section.'' Section 102(a) makes clear that there are no conditions placed on the Pakistani government for delivery of the $7.5 billion in assistance. The only accounting requirements are of the U.S. executive branch. Section 102(d) makes clear that a long term commitment to increased civilian assistance for the people of Pakistan is envisioned by stating that it is the desire of Congress that the amounts authorized for fiscal years 2010-2014 shall continue from fiscal years 2015-2019. Section 103(b) authorizes establishment of field offices for Inspectors General to audit and oversee expenditure of this assistance. It is the intent of Congress that such offices would be established in consultation with appropriate Pakistani authorities for the purpose of ensuring optimal management of resources. Title II: Security Assistance for Pakistan The intention of this section is to strengthen cooperative efforts to confront extremism. The purposes of security assistance are intended to be completely cooperative, and reflect the intention that such assistance be used to support Pakistan in achieving its stated objectives in winning the ongoing counterinsurgency, defeating terrorist organizations that threaten Pakistan, and strengthening democratic institutions. Specifically, Section 201(1) ``Purposes of Assistance'' states that: ``The purposes of assistance under this title are-- (1) to support Pakistan's paramount national security need to fight and win the ongoing counterinsurgency within its borders in accordance with its national security interests; (2) to work with the Government of Pakistan to improve Pakistan's border security and control and help prevent any Pakistani territory from being used as a base or conduit for terrorist attacks in Pakistan, or elsewhere; (3) to work in close cooperation with the Government of Pakistan to coordinate action against extremist and terrorist targets; and (4) to help strengthen the institutions of democratic governance. . . .'' The provisions applied to certain limited portions of U.S. security assistance in Section 203 are intended to be fully in line with the existing policy of the Government of Pakistan. Specifically, Section 203(c)(1) reflects our understanding that cooperative efforts currently being undertaken by the Governments of Pakistan and the United States to combat proliferation will continue. Section 203(c)(2) reflects the intent that U.S. security assistance is used in furtherance of the purposes set forth in Section 201 above, e.g., ensuring Pakistan's security, winning the counterinsurgency within Pakistan, preventing territory from being used for terrorist attacks in Pakistan and elsewhere, and coordinating action against extremist and terrorist targets. This section requires a certification by the U.S. executive branch to Congress regarding the efforts and progress made in achieving these purposes, and includes a series of factors to be considered collectively by the Secretary of State in making this assessment. Section 203(c)(3) includes a provision intended to express support for democratic institutions in Pakistan. Section 203(e) contains a waiver making clear that this certification could be waived if the determination is made by the Secretary of State in the interests of national security that this was necessary to continue such assistance. Title III: Strategy, Accountability, Monitoring, and Other Provisions The intention of this section is to ensure that there is transparency and accountability in the way authorized assistance is spent. This Title requires the U.S. executive branch to provide various reports to Congress designed to demonstrate that funds are being used for the purposes set forth in Title I and Title II; there are no requirements on the Government of Pakistan. Section 301 ``Strategy Reports'' requires three reports from the U.S. executive branch that detail a plan for how U.S. assistance to Pakistan will be spent and evaluated and a regional security plan for how the United States can best work with its partners for ``effective counterinsurgency and counterterrorism efforts.'' Section 302 ``Monitoring Reports'' reflects the need for ongoing consultation between the U.S. executive branch and Congress on monitoring U.S. assistance to Pakistan, including a ``Semi-Annual Monitoring Report'' where: ``The Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of Defense, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the assistance provided under this Act during the preceding 180- day period.'' The many requirements of this report are intended as a way for Congress to assess how effectively U.S. funds are being spent, shortfalls in U.S. resources that hinder the use of such funds, and steps the Government of Pakistan has taken to advance our mutual interests in countering extremism and nuclear proliferation and strengthening democratic institutions. There is no intent to, and nothing in this Act in any way suggests that there should be, any U.S. role in micromanaging internal Pakistani affairs, including the promotion of Pakistani military officers or the internal operations of the Pakistani military. The reports envisioned in this Section are not binding on Pakistan, and require only the provision of information by the executive branch to the U.S. Congress, in furtherance of the Act's stated purpose of strengthening civilian institutions and the democratically-elected Government of Pakistan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am necessarily absent for the vote today on the McCain amendment, Senate Amendment No. 2626 to the fiscal year 2010 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill (H.R. 2847). If I were able to attend today's session, I would have opposed the McCain amendment. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture appropriations conference report and the Ensign motion to recommit the Senate fiscal year 2010 Commerce, Justice, and Science appropriations bill, H.R. 2847. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported the fiscal year 2010 Agriculture conference report and opposed the Ensign motion to recommit H.R. 2847.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, all of us in public life have been privileged to have very special people come into our public lives who dedicate their time, energy, and passion to helping us serve, but even among these special people, there are those who stand out. I am speaking today of just such a person--my friend, Mary Pappey. And I am speaking today because it is a special day for this special person--it is her 85th birthday. Mary has served on my staff in Boston since 1988, longer than just about anybody who has ever worked with me. It is often said that when God closes one door, He opens another. And that is how Mary came to us. She was a homemaker whose happy life was upended when her husband Nicholas passed away in 1988. To help fill the void, she asked if she could volunteer in our office a couple of days a week. And she has been there ever since. It is hard to remember a time that Mary hasn't been there in my Boston office, whether answering phones, handling mail, or just making sure everyone is OK doing whatever had to be done. She is an incredible mother to her children; in so many ways she has also been a mother to our Boston office family. And always, she has been a calming presence in what can be a hectic environment. It helps, too, that she bakes a mean baklava that can bring some needed sweetness to the most frenetic of work days. But that isn't all. Far from it. Mary has had a very special job in my Boston office. Since joining my staff, she has advanced all the applications we have received from students seeking appointments to the military service academies. She has made sure the applications are complete, all deadlines are met and, when necessary, held the hands of anxious applicants and even more anxious parents of applicants. For 21 years, Mary has handled this job with special skills and sensitivities. And, in fact, she has shepherded through an entire generation of service academy appointees from Massachusetts. Mary's grandchildren, the joys of her life, call her ``Yaya,'' which is Greek for grandmother. I think we could all call her that, because she has been a kind of grandmother to all of us--someone who offers reassurance when it is needed, someone who puts her heart and soul into everything she does, someone to watch over all of us, with kindness and affection. I can't recall a time I didn't get a huge hug from Mary whenever I came by the office. I should also mention that Mary has a special way with words, or rather, with one word in particular the word ``dear.'' At some point, she has referred to everyone in the office as ``dear,'' especially when they are having a rough day. That is not surprising. But what is surprising is how, when she is helping with the phones, Mary often addresses the caller as ``dear.'' Again, that is not surprising, except when you consider that sometimes it is an anonymous caller, someone so frustrated by what they just saw on television or by the run around they are getting from Federal bureaucracies that can at times seem unreasonably cold, that they don't want to identify themselves. But it is hard for them to stay mad with Mary calling them ``dear.'' She brings out the very best in all of us. So, I want to thank ``dear'' Mary for her devotion to the people of Massachusetts, for all her years of service on my staff and for being such a wonderful, generous friend. And I especially want to wish ``dear'' Mary all of my best and hope that this will be a very happy birthday.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the membership and jurisdiction of the Committee on Foreign Relations, be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I congratulate Mr. Jimmy Means of Massachusetts for the quality of his service with the Massachusetts Highway Department and his contributions to the beautification of the Commonwealth. Mr. Means began his career with the department as a toll collector on the Massachusetts Turnpike. And for the past 10 years, he has overseen the department's programs for collecting litter and beautifying the roadways in his native Worcester County. This kind of public service is vital, because we know all too well that roadway litter remains a problem despite decades of antilitter efforts. Last year, more than 582 tons of litter were collected from along State roadways--an expense in the millions of dollars to Massachusetts taxpayers. Massachusetts, like most States, encourages volunteer efforts to keep State roads and highways litter-free. At least once a month, from April 15 to November 15, volunteers ``adopt'' a 2-mile section of highway and remove litter. But as important as the volunteers are, the beautification of Massachusetts highways depends largely on the work of people like Mr. Means. And in Worcester County, Mr. Means' friends and colleagues report that he in particular has built a reputation for responding quickly and efficiently to any highway blights, receiving praise from the local officials and the office of the Governor. I congratulate Mr. Means for his work on behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts--work that all of us can take pride in and appreciate even more this time of year as tourists flock to New England to view our beautiful fall foliage. I applaud his efforts and his dedication in keeping Massachusetts roadways clean and safe--and wish him many more years of contributing to Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased to submit a resolution to honor the 50th Anniversary of the Minute Man National Historical Park. Since September 21, 1959, the Minute Man National Historical Park has preserved landmarks from the earliest days of the American Revolutionary War. It has educated millions of visitors from around the world about these historic events that led to the birth of our nation and the ideals embodied in those courageous actions. The Minute Man National Historical Park encompasses more than 1,000 acres in the historic communities of Lexington, Lincoln, and Concord, Massachusetts. It includes areas such as Concord's North Bridge, where the American militia were first ordered to fire on British soldiers, an event immortalized by Ralph Waldo Emerson in ``The Concord Hymn'' as ``the shot heard round the world.'' It features Paul Revere's capture site, where his famous ``Midnight Ride'' to warn the colonists that British soldiers were marching to Concord came to its conclusion. The Park also features The Wayside, a house that was in turn home to celebrated authors Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne and Margaret Sidney. More than just preserving these treasured sites and landscapes, the Minute Man National Historical Park preserves the spirit of our nation's history, the American Revolution, the ideals of democracy, liberty, and freedom. The creation of Minute Man National Historical Park 50 years ago showed our commitment to honoring the proud tradition of the American Revolution and maintaining these historic sites for generations to come. I ask all my colleagues to honor our history and renew that commitment today by supporting this resolution.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I hope the Senate will take time today not just to remember but to honor the sacrifice and courage of SFC Jared C. Monti of Raynham, MA. It is a solemn privilege to do so for a man who has been awarded our Nation's highest military decoration--the Medal of Honor. Sergeant Monti joins an elite group of Americans who have received the Medal of Honor. Just 3,447 before him--all soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen of uncommon courage, valor, and gallantry--have been so honored. He is the sixth to be awarded the Medal of Honor for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Millions of Americans have defended our Nation's liberty for more than two centuries. But these 3,447 and now Sergeant Monti--risked their lives above and beyond the call of duty. And 617, like Sergeant Monti, gave their lives for the cause of America's freedom. Our soldiers, sailors, marines, and airmen perform acts of bravery every day. But some of those acts, like Sergeant Monti's on June 26, 2006, exceed even our country's highest expectations. During his more than 12 years in the Army, Sergeant Monti was recognized by his superiors as a man with a career of unlimited potential ahead of him. But Sergeant Monti's final act of bravery, on that fateful day in June 2006, also showed him to be a selfless leader with uncommon courage. Sergeant Monti was leading a patrol of 16 troops on a mountain range in Afghanistan when attacked by a Taliban force of more than 50 fighters. Sergeant Monti not only prevented the Taliban force from overrunning his unit but also positioned his forces to disrupt a flanking attempt. The sergeant managed to call in air support which eventually forced the enemy to retreat and prevented the patrol from being overrun against overwhelming odds. When he realized one of his fellow soldiers was missing, he went searching for him. He found him lying wounded and exposed in the open ground. Sergeant Monti exposed himself to heavy enemy fire three times trying to rescue the wounded soldier. On the third attempt, the sergeant was mortally wounded. Sergeant Monti's ability to act quickly and decisively in the midst of enemy fire is testimony to his leadership, without which his patrol's casualty rate that day would have been substantially higher. Courage is one of the virtues we as Americans admire most. That is why the highest military decoration--and one of the oldest--our country bestows on its soldiers is the Medal of Honor. It has been awarded only to the few possessing a special brand of courage, heroism, and patriotism, Americans like Sergeant Monti. Sergeant Monti was an extraordinary American and an extraordinary soldier, one of extraordinary gallantry. By his actions, he has taken his rightful place in the revered company of our country's most selfless heroes. By tradition, Medal of Honor winners are shown the highest respect with salutes by all ranks, from the Commander in Chief on down. It is a fitting tradition for we stand in awe of these brave warriors. So I am proud to join all those saluting Sergeant Monti this day, including the Commander in Chief. And on behalf of a grateful nation and his home State of Massachusetts, we also salute his parents, Paul and Janet, and express our gratitude to them for their sacrifice which cannot be expressed in words.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a key component of the health reform debate is ensuring that all people--regardless of their health status--have access to comprehensive and affordable coverage options. Unfortunately, under current law Medicare beneficiaries are subject to discriminatory medical practices that deny coverage options based on their age, condition, or disability. Medigap plans provide vital assistance to Medicare beneficiaries in paying Medicare cost-sharing. Without supplemental coverage, the absence of an out-of-pocket limit in Medicare leaves beneficiaries vulnerable to catastrophic medical expenses. Unfortunately, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities or who have end-stage renal disease, ESRD, do not have the same guaranteed issue rights as Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older. In the absence of equal opportunity and access to Medigap policies at the Federal level, 29 States have chosen to grant the same rights to disabled and ESRD beneficiaries that seniors currently enjoy. ESRD beneficiaries are also the only group of Medicare beneficiaries currently denied the same Medicare choices as other Medicare beneficiaries. They are statutorily prohibited from enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans. Today I am introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act, a bill that improves coverage options to Medicare beneficiaries. First, the legislation would extend guaranteed issue of Medigap policies to all Medicare beneficiaries rather than limiting guaranteed issue to those beneficiaries who are over 65 years of age. This change will significantly improve coverage options and affordability for beneficiaries with disabilities or end-stage renal disease. Second, the legislation recognizes that Medicare beneficiaries need flexibility to adjust their coverage as changes to their plans are made. More specifically, the legislation would give guaranteed issue rights to Medicare Advantage enrollees if they decide to switch to traditional Medicare during an enrollment period. Today, if a Medicare Advantage enrollee learns of premium increases or benefit reduction in their plan, they have the option of returning to traditional Medicare but they have no assurance they can buy Medigap coverage if they do so. Third, the legislation would provide guaranteed issue to dual eligibles who lose their Medicaid coverage and find themselves in traditional Medicare without the cost protections of Medicaid and without supplemental coverage options. Finally, this legislation would for the first time give beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease the option of enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act and who have endorsed it today, including the AARP, California Health Advocates, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Consumers Union, Dialysis Patient Citizens, Fresenius Medical Care, Medicare Rights Center, and the National Kidney Foundation. These reforms would ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries regardless of their disability or age have equal opportunity and access to affordable Medicare options to reduce out-of-pocket costs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve these goals in the context of health care reform.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, a key component of the health reform debate is ensuring that all people--regardless of their health status--have access to comprehensive and affordable coverage options. Unfortunately, under current law Medicare beneficiaries are subject to discriminatory medical practices that deny coverage options based on their age, condition, or disability. Medigap plans provide vital assistance to Medicare beneficiaries in paying Medicare cost-sharing. Without supplemental coverage, the absence of an out-of-pocket limit in Medicare leaves beneficiaries vulnerable to catastrophic medical expenses. Unfortunately, Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities or who have end-stage renal disease, ESRD, do not have the same guaranteed issue rights as Medicare beneficiaries age 65 and older. In the absence of equal opportunity and access to Medigap policies at the Federal level, 29 States have chosen to grant the same rights to disabled and ESRD beneficiaries that seniors currently enjoy. ESRD beneficiaries are also the only group of Medicare beneficiaries currently denied the same Medicare choices as other Medicare beneficiaries. They are statutorily prohibited from enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans. Today I am introducing the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act, a bill that improves coverage options to Medicare beneficiaries. First, the legislation would extend guaranteed issue of Medigap policies to all Medicare beneficiaries rather than limiting guaranteed issue to those beneficiaries who are over 65 years of age. This change will significantly improve coverage options and affordability for beneficiaries with disabilities or end-stage renal disease. Second, the legislation recognizes that Medicare beneficiaries need flexibility to adjust their coverage as changes to their plans are made. More specifically, the legislation would give guaranteed issue rights to Medicare Advantage enrollees if they decide to switch to traditional Medicare during an enrollment period. Today, if a Medicare Advantage enrollee learns of premium increases or benefit reduction in their plan, they have the option of returning to traditional Medicare but they have no assurance they can buy Medigap coverage if they do so. Third, the legislation would provide guaranteed issue to dual eligibles who lose their Medicaid coverage and find themselves in traditional Medicare without the cost protections of Medicaid and without supplemental coverage options. Finally, this legislation would for the first time give beneficiaries with end-stage renal disease the option of enrolling in Medicare Advantage plans. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have been integral to the development of the Equal Access to Medicare Options Act and who have endorsed it today, including the AARP, California Health Advocates, Center for Medicare Advocacy, Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities, Consumers Union, Dialysis Patient Citizens, Fresenius Medical Care, Medicare Rights Center, and the National Kidney Foundation. These reforms would ensure that all Medicare beneficiaries regardless of their disability or age have equal opportunity and access to affordable Medicare options to reduce out-of-pocket costs. I look forward to working with my colleagues in the Senate to achieve these goals in the context of health care reform.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut. There was no closer or better friend to Ted Kennedy than Chris Dodd. I admire and respect his many efforts in the Senate to fight the fights in the spirit of Ted Kennedy. This could not be more appropriate, and I do not think anything more needs to be said. I thank him, and I thank the majority leader. It is wonderful to have Patrick, Congressman Kennedy, on the floor of the Senate to share in this moment.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, this month we commemorate an important anniversary: 70 years ago the Second World War began in Europe with a ruthless Nazi assault on Poland. Outnumbered and outgunned, Poland's defenders fought bravely, forced to surrender only through the overwhelming force of their enemies. Every American should remember the sacrifice made by the heroes of Poland, whose bravery was tragically often rewarded with a concentration camp or a bullet in the head in a dark forest. They were the first of many innocent victims, almost too many to count. On an occasion like this it is important to honor the past, remind the present of the sacrifice of those who came before, and warn the future that the world should never allow the initiation of such catastrophic events again. In September 1939, authoritarian paranoia and violence won out over trust and humanity, and in the end the world burned. Seventy years later, Poland and its democratic neighbors work together in Brussels to build a better Europe. We remember the importance of that hard-won cooperation on this 70th anniversary. As Americans, let us appreciate this achievement, help extend the cooperation, and continue to assist in the preservation of democratic ideals.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I might use.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Majority Leader Reid and Minority Leader McConnell for the time they have set aside for us today to remember Ted Kennedy, our beloved colleague, my senior Senator for nearly a quarter of a century, a friend, a man I met first and who had great influence on me in politics back in 1962 when, as a young, about- to-be college student, I had the privilege of working as a volunteer in his first campaign for the Senate. It is difficult to look at his desk now cloaked in the velvet and the roses, a desk from which he championed so many important causes, a desk from which he regaled us, educated us, and befriended us for so many years, and even more difficult for us to think of this Chamber, our Nation's Capital, or our country without him. On many occasions in the Senate, he was the indispensable man. On every occasion in this Chamber and out, he was a man whose heart was as big as heaven, whose optimism could overwhelm any doubter, and whose joy for life was a wonderfully contagious and completely irresistible thing. Ted loved poetry, and though the verse was ancient, the poet could have had Ted in mind when he wrote: One must wait until the evening to see how splendid the day has been. Our day with Ted Kennedy was, indeed, splendid, its impact immeasurable. Just think for a moment what a different country we lived in before Ted Kennedy came to the Senate in 1962 and what a more perfect Union we live in for the 47 years he served here. Before Ted Kennedy had a voice in the Senate and a vote in the Senate, there was no Civil Rights Act, no Voting Rights Act, no Medicare, no Medicaid, no vote for 18-year-olds, no Martin Luther King, Jr., holiday, no Meals on Wheels, no equal funding for women's collegiate sports, no State health insurance program, no Family Medical Leave Act, no AmeriCorps, no National Service Act. All of these are literally just a part of Ted's legislative legacy. It is why the Boston Globe once wrote that in actual measurable impact on the lives of tens of millions of working families, the elderly, and the needy, Ted belongs in the same sentence with Franklin Roosevelt. Ted's season of service spanned the administrations, as we heard from the minority leader, of 10 Presidents. He served with more than 350 Senators, including those for whom our principal office buildings are named: Richard Russell, Everett Dirksen, and Philip Hart. He cast more than 16,000 votes. He wrote more than 2,500 bills. He had an important hand in shaping almost every single important law that affects our lives today. He helped create nearly every major social program in the last 40 years. He was the Senate's seminal voice for civil rights, women's rights, human rights, and the rights of workers. He stood against judges who would turn back the clock on constitutional freedoms. He pointed America away from war, first in Vietnam and last in Iraq. And for three decades, including the last days, he labored with all his might to make health care a right for all Americans. Through it all, even as he battled, he showed us how to be a good colleague, always loyal, always caring, always lively. His adversaries were never his enemies. And his friends--his friends--always came first. In my office there is a photograph of the two of us on day one-- 1985--my first day in the Senate. Ted signed it: As Humphrey Bogart would have said: This is the beginning of a beautiful friendship. For almost 25 years it was a beautiful friendship, as I worked at his side learning from the best. And, yes, like any colleague in the Senate, there were moments when we had a difference on one issue or another, but we always found a way to move forward in friendship and in our efforts to represent the State. Teddy was the best natural teacher anyone in politics could ask for. I may not always have been the best student, but he never stopped dispensing the lessons. I came to the Senate out of an activist grassroots political base, where the coin of the realm was issues and policy positions. Activists are sometimes, as I learned, so issue focused and intent that they can inadvertently look past the personal touch or the emotional connection for fear that it somehow distracts from the agenda. But Teddy, through his actions, showed us how essential all of those other elements of political life are. Yes, Tip O'Neill taught a generation of Massachusetts politicians that all politics is local. It was Teddy who went beyond that and taught us that all politics is personal. All of us knew the kindness of Ted Kennedy at one time or another, Mr. President. During my first term in the Senate, I came down with pneumonia. I was then single and tired and Ted deemed me not to be getting the care I ought to get. So the next thing I knew, he literally instructed me to depart for Florida to stay in the Kennedy home in Palm Beach and be cared for until I got well. Indeed, I did exactly that. He also showed up at my house the evening of Inauguration Day of 2005, and together with Chris Dodd we shared laughter and stories from the campaign trail. We were loud enough and had enough fun that someone might have wondered if we were somehow mistaken and thought we had won. He understood the moment. He knew the best tonic was laughter and friendship. Many times that is all he needed to do, just be there. You couldn't help but feel better with him around. All of us who served with him were privileged to share Ted's incredible love of life and laughter. In the cloakroom, sometimes the roars of laughter were so great they could be heard out on the Senate floor. Once I remember Ted was holding forth--I will not share the topic--and the Presiding Officer pounded the gavel and demanded, ``There will be order in the Senate and in the cloakroom.'' It was the first time I ever heard that call for order. His pranks were also works of art and usually brilliantly calculated. One night after a long series of Thursday night votes that had pushed Senators past the time to catch commercial flights home to the Northeast, Senator Frank Lautenberg had arranged for a private charter for himself in order to get up to Massachusetts. It turned out a number of Senators needed to travel in that direction, and when Frank learned of it, he kindly offered Senator Claiborne Pell, Ted, and myself a ride with him. There was no discussion of sharing the cost. Everyone thought Frank was being very generous. But the next week, when we were reassembled on the floor of the Senate, official looking envelopes were delivered to each of us under Frank Lautenberg's signature with exorbitant expenses charged for this flight. Senator Pell roared down the aisle, came up to me sputtering about this minor little aircraft and how could it possibly cost so much money. Senator Lautenberg was red faced, protesting he knew nothing about it, when out of the corner of my eye I spotted Ted Kennedy up there by his desk with this big Cheshire cat grin starting to split a gut, so pleased with himself. The mystery was solved. Ted had managed to secure a few sheets of Lautenberg stationery, and he sent false bills to each of us. He once told me his earliest recollections were of pillow fights with his brother Jack and, in the years following, sailing with Jack. At the end of the day Ted's job was the long and tedious task of folding and packing the sails away. In politics and in the great progressive battles that were his life's work, Ted never packed his sails away. Were he here today, he would exhort us to sail into the wind, as he did so many times. There is still so much to do, so much that he wanted to do, and so much that he would want us to do now, not in his name but in his spirit. When Ted was 12 years old, he spent hours with his brother Jack taking turns reading the epic Civil War poem ``John Brown's Body,'' by Steven Vincent Benet. It is book length and filled with great and terrible scenes of battle and heartbreaking vignettes of loss and privation and home. It surprises me to read it now and find so much in it that in fact reminds me of Ted. Benet wrote: Sometimes there comes a crack in time itself. Sometimes the earth is torn by something blind. Sometimes an image that has stood so long it seems implanted on the polar star is moved against an unfathomed force that suddenly will not have it anymore. Call it the mores, call it God or Fate, call it Mansoul or economic law, that force exists and moves. And when it moves it will imploy a hard and actual stone to batter into bits an actual wall and change the actual scheme of things. Ted Kennedy was such a stone who actually changed the scheme of things on so many issues for so many people. Over the years, I have received hundreds of handwritten notes from Ted--some funny, some touching, all of them treasures. Just before Thanksgiving Ted sent me a note that he would be spending the holiday with his beloved sailboat, the Maya. He added: If you are out on the sound, look for the Maya. She will be there. Indeed, I will never sail the sound again without thinking of the Maya and her big hard skipper. There is an anonymous quote that I once read, which because of Ted's faith--which was grounded and deeply important to him--I think it describes how we should think of his departure from the Senate. 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. 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 is 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 she is just as able to bear her load of living freight to her destined port. Her diminished size is in me, not in her. And just at the moment when someone at my side says, ``There, she is gone!'' There are other eyes watching her coming, and other voices ready to take up the glad shout; ``Here she comes!'' And that is dying. That is the way Ted Kennedy will live in the Senate--his spirit, his words, and the fight that still comes. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, throughout American history, music has always been a harbinger of social change. I experienced it first hand during the 1960s and early 1970s when a generation of Americans began marching--marching for civil rights, social justice, and an end to the Vietnam war. For many Americans, that period of our country's history comes with its own soundtrack. That is why it is so encouraging to me to see what is happening with the Thirteen Yards To Victory, a band from my home State of Massachusetts. This remarkable group of young people is dedicated to helping others. They are donating all the profits from their upcoming release of American Dreamers to benefit arts and music education programs across the country. They are setting a wonderful example for their peers--showing them that everybody has the capacity to make a positive difference in their very own way. Because of what they are doing, more of our youth will be able to enjoy and learn about the arts and develop their own skills. This, really, is nothing new for the members of Thirteen Yards To Victory--Anthony DiPerri, Vinny Prezioso, Thomas Iannello, Ryan Passariello, and Dave Rossi. This is only the latest occasion in which they have been recognized for their dedication to others and their unique approaches which makes their projects so successful. They are not alone in such efforts, however. Volunteers in our community play an invaluable role in helping those in need and strengthening the foundation of our society. In fact, nearly 62 million Americans volunteered at some point last year. I am particularly encouraged by the increase in the number of young people who are connecting with their communities and volunteering their time. Thirteen Yards To Victory is just one example of what is happening all across the country. I wish Anthony, Vinny, Thomas, Ryan, and Dave all the best with American Dreamers. I hope it makes American Dreamers out of us all. And I hope their music will be a part of the soundtrack of the social change taking place in America today.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, as an accomplished journalist who served as spokesman for two Secretaries of Defense, Ken Bacon crafted a unique and forceful voice. Then, as President of Refugees International, he lent that voice to those who needed it most. When he died last month, the powerful and the destitute alike lost a trusted and beloved friend. Ken Bacon was famously bespectacled, bow-tied, warm and whip-smart. He was someone who commanded your respect and won your affection in equal measure. As a young intern, Bacon launched his journalistic career with a front-page Wall Street Journal story about a new car repair system that one mechanic had called ``the greatest thing since girls.'' In the decades that followed, he went on to cover the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Pentagon. Bacon was also a talented editor who never stopped writing on a dazzlingly wide array of topics, from banking reform to a crack addict's rehabilitation. In the last months of his life, he also wrote movingly and pointedly about health care reform and his struggles with the melanoma that eventually took his life. Bacon's conscientious work earned the admiration of those he reported on. Defense Secretary William Perry finally convinced him to work from the other side of the podium. Bacon was unfailingly well-prepared, using the same skills that made him a standout reporter to anticipate reporters' questions and offer satisfyingly detailed answers. He excelled as a spokesman because he never lost his respect for his former colleagues or for the truth. When things got tough, he did not revert to hollow spin or talking points designed to misdirect. He was not interested in ``gotcha games.'' Ken Bacon became a Pentagon spokesman because he believed he had an obligation to inform the public, and he took that duty seriously. It was as Pentagon spokesman that Ken first encountered the problem that would become his defining passion and the capstone on his life's work. In 1999, he visited a refugee camp during a trip to the Balkans with Defense Secretary William Cohen. What he saw changed the last decade of his life--not to mention the lives of the countless refugees he helped. Ken Bacon was transformed by the plight of those who had lost their homes to war. When he left the Pentagon, he became President of Refugees International in 2001. Beneath his intellectual demeanor, Ken Bacon always had a sweet side. He fought for people displaced from their homes by war, civil conflict, famine, and drought. This mission gave Bacon's life new meaning, and it gave the refugee community a very powerful champion. Ken Bacon's stellar reputation, his influence in a city that depends on known commodities, and his Pentagon credentials proved to be enormously helpful in calling attention to the plight of the powerless--including the humanitarian advocates who struggled to be heard in official Washington. Bacon's name and his voice lent legitimacy to causes too easily overlooked by those accustomed to defining America's mission abroad based on a very narrow definition of our security and our interests. Ken understood that our shared humanity belonged at the very center of that conversation--and he used his unique talents and energy to ensure that it was. He saw the impressive effort to care for European refugees in the former Yugoslavia, and he wanted to ensure that it became the rule worldwide--not the exception. Ken visited refugee camps in forgotten corners of the world, from Cambodia to Colombia. He wanted to make sure that no refugee--anywhere slipped through the cracks. Ken Bacon was tireless. Essays, speeches, press conferences, advocacy he threw himself into his work and refugees everywhere benefitted. Ken's newsroom training and strategic thinking often put him ahead of the curve. He sounded an early alarm about the genocide in Darfur. He was also a forceful champion for Iraqi refugees--first decrying our neglect, and then urging on our actions as the State Department's funding for Iraqi refugees increased tenfold between 2006 and 2008. Our sympathies are with Darcy, Ken's wife of 43 years; with his daughters Sarah and Katherine, to whom he was absolutely devoted, and with his father, brother and two grandchildren. Ken Bacon gave voice to the voiceless. All who were fortunate enough to know him will miss him greatly. Many who never met him have benefitted from his work, and many more will continue to do so. Recently, Ken and his wife Darcy raised the seed money for a new Refugees International center to address ``the needs of the tens of millions expected to be displaced by climate change.'' The Ken and Darcy Bacon Center for the Study of Climate Displacement will undoubtedly be a valuable voice in raising attention to what is poised to become a staggering refugee crisis in the years to come. We only wish that Ken were still with us to help us meet this new challenge. In newsrooms and humanitarian organizations, in windswept tent cities forgotten by most but never forsaken by Ken, an exceptional, exemplary life is being retold, mourned, and celebrated.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to express my support for the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Her career on the Federal bench, from the Southern District Court in New York to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and her personal journey, from a childhood in a housing project in the Bronx, to honors at Princeton University and Yale Law School, are now well known to everybody in the country. But one of the things that received a small amount of attention in her confirmation hearing are the 5 years--right out of law school--she spent as a prosecutor in the office of legendary Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau. It is a reflection of Sonia Sotomayor's grit, determination, and courage that she took on this challenge at that particular time to serve as an assistant district attorney during one of the most crime-laden periods of New York's history. It is not often we get a chance to elevate to the Nation's highest Court someone who has followed police into shooting galleries, someone who has tracked down witnesses on streets awash in drug-related violence, and someone who has personally taken on witnesses and shredded some of them on cross-examination, and who has personally moved juries to tears in her closing arguments. It is not often we get a chance to confirm a Supreme Court nominee who does not come from what Chairman Pat Leahy likes to call the ``judicial monastery.'' But rather we have a chance to confirm someone who has the personal experience, perspective, and understanding of how the world works within our system of law as a practitioner and also having seen what it is like for those who try to enforce the law at the street level, our police, our law enforcement officials, and also in seeing what happens to victims and families drawn into the system unwillingly. Judge Sotomayor certainly was not in a ``judicial monastery'' when she was undertaking the task of putting criminals behind bars in New York. I believe experience will prove of enormous value to somebody on the Supreme Court--someone who can go there understanding what it means to work 12-hour days as a prosecutor struggling to put together a case with reluctant witnesses, with police who have a difficult time coming to the courthouse, and, obviously, with experience in interpreting the fifth amendment, fourth amendment rights with respect to search and seizure and personal incrimination. One of her cases, in particular, stands out, which is the 1983 so- called Tarzan Murderer case, involving a man who broke into apartments, sometimes by swinging from rooftops, robbing the residents, and then shooting them for no apparent reason. It was Judge Sotomayor's first homicide case and also her first homicide conviction. The defendant, Richard Maddicks, went to prison for 62\1/2\ years. Judge Sotomayor said the case affected her as no other; that it underscored for her how crime destroys families and how prosecutors ``must be sensitive to the price that crime imposes on our society.'' I believe, having been a prosecutor, those are lessons I learned also firsthand and did not come automatically to the bar with a sensitivity to. As much as I admire her work as a New York prosecutor, that experience alone, obviously, does not qualify her for confirmation to the Supreme Court. But I think it is an important experience, and it says a lot about her approach to the law and what she is willing to fight for. There are, obviously, few things we do that are as important as confirming a Supreme Court Justice, and especially now with the Court so evenly divided. So this is a pivotal moment for the Court. The direction our country will take for the next 30 years is being determined now by this debate. A vote for a Supreme Court nominee is a vote for each of our personal understandings of the Constitution, of the laws of the land, and of what we think is important with respect to the application of the rights and freedoms that define this country of ours. That is what this vote is. It is a vote to protect the basic rights and freedoms that are important to every American, and I would say, particularly, privacy, equality, and justice. Consider, for example, the case of Lilly Ledbetter and Diana Levine as an example of how just one Supreme Court appointment can affect the lives and freedoms of countless Americans. In the Ledbetter case, five of the Court's nine Justices granted immunity to employers who discriminate against workers in matters of salary. It took a new Congress and a new President to strike down the Court's ruling in the continuing effort to ensure that all Americans--women and men--receive equal pay for equal work. I have voted for Supreme Court nominees in the past, when it was clear to me they would protect those constitutional rights and freedoms. And I have voted against Supreme Court nominees, when it was clear to me they would not protect those rights and freedoms. So we have to ask ourselves: What direction will this nominee take the Supreme Court? Will this nominee protect the civil rights and liberties enshrined in the Constitution and protected by law that we have fought for so long and hard? Will this nominee support Congress's power to enact critical legislation--sometimes defining those rights? Will the nominee be an effective check on the executive branch? As a Senator, each of us has a right--not just a right, but an obligation, a duty--to protect the fundamental rights that are part of our Constitution. I think part of that means we have to preserve the incredible progress we have made with respect to civil rights and realizing those rights. Having reviewed Judge Sotomayor's extensive record, and having read some of her more important rulings, I have concluded that she will do exactly that, she will protect them. She is someone who understands what sets America apart from almost every other country is the right of any citizen--no matter what level they are at, in terms of their work, employment or pay, income, status--that no matter where they come from, no matter what is their lot in life, they have a right to have their day in court. Recently, in this country, over the last 15 or 20 years, we have seen those rights reduced, in some cases. We have seen the access of average citizens to the courts of America diminished. I believe Judge Sotomayor understands the real world, and how important it is to preserve that relationship of an individual citizen to access to the courts. It took a Supreme Court that understood the real world to see that the doctrine of ``separate but equal'' was anything but equal and, therefore, to break the Constitution out of the legal straightjacket it found itself in. I believe Judge Sotomayor meets the standard that was set by Justice Potter Stewart, who said: The mark of a good judge is a judge whose opinions you can read . . . and have no idea if the judge is a man or a woman, Republican or Democrat, Christian or Jew . . . You just know that he or she was a good judge. For the last 17 years, she has applied the law to the facts in the cases she has considered, while always cognizant of the impact of her decisions before the court. I think she showed restraint, but she also showed fairness and impartiality in performing her duties under the Constitution. I believe, though, it is clear her years as a prosecutor prepared her for the Federal bench in ways that few jurists get to experience. After that she spent nearly 6 years as a district court judge and almost 12 years on the appellate court demonstrating a very sophisticated grasp of legal doctrine and earning a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist. Courage is one of the qualities that Judge Sotomayor's colleagues and friends often attribute to her. One of those colleagues who ought to know these things was her one-time boss and, I might add, somebody whom, when I was a prosecutor, we modeled much of what we did in Massachusetts on his approach to the New York District Attorney's Office, and that is Robert Morgenthau. He said she was a ``fearless prosecutor'' and ``an able champion of the law.'' The police with whom she worked so closely felt the same way. That is why her nomination to the Supreme Court has been endorsed by nearly every major law enforcement organization in the country. As a district court judge, she showed just how fearless she could be when, in 1995, she ended the Major League Baseball strike with an injunction against the league's powerful owners. All of her actions on the district court were important. Of all her actions on the district court, that was one of my favorites. Some experts suggested that she had saved baseball and, in doing so, she had, as Claude Lewis of the Philadelphia Inquirer wrote, ``joined the ranks of Joe DiMaggio, Willie Mays, Jackie Robinson and Ted Williams.'' I am not sure I would go as far as Ted Williams, but Judge Sotomayor's actions did get the Red Sox back on the field at Fenway Park. It is interesting to me that Judge Sotomayor would bring more Federal judicial experience to the Supreme Court than any Justice in the last 100 years. That is a fact her critics conveniently ignore. In fact, she would bring more Federal judicial experience to the high court--more that 17 years all totaled--than any of the current associate justices. Chief Justice Roberts came to the court with just 2 years on the Federal bench, Justice Alito 16 years, Justice Scalia 4 years, Justice Thomas 1 year, Justice Kennedy 13 years, Justice Ginsburg 13 years, Justice Souter 1 year, Justice Brennan and Justice Breyer zero years. As we all know, Judge Sotomayor would be the first Latina to serve on the Supreme Court, just as she was the first Latina on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Much was made of this after her nomination by President Obama. And rightly so. Judge Sotomayor is a role model of aspiration, of discipline, of commitment, of intellectual prowess and integrity. Her story is an American story, a classic American story, an inspiring American story. How could anyone not be moved by the sight of Judge Sotomayor's mother, Celina, wiping away tears as the Judge paid loving tribute to her during her confirmation hearing? How could anyone not celebrate the journey that is the Judge's life story? An improbable journey, an extraordinary journey, a uniquely American journey. We should not underestimate the importance of the diversity Judge Sotomayor will bring to the Supreme Court. People from different backgrounds bring different perspectives to bear on decisions, and that produces better decisions. That is especially important for the Supreme Court, which is, after all, the ultimate champion of the rule of law and protector of rights in America. How important is diversity? The Supreme Court recently decided a case and found that school officials violated the fourth amendment rights of a young girl by conducting an intrusive strip search of her underclothes while looking for the equivalent of a pain killer. During oral arguments in that case, one of the male Justices compared the search to changing for gym clothes. Several other Justices laughed, but Justice Ruth Ginsburg, the lone female on the court, pointed out how ``humiliating'' such a search is to young girls. I know that the Judge's critics claimed that she would rely on ``empathy'' rather than the law when deciding cases. But during her confirmation hearing, she made clear her commitment to the rule of law. ``Judges can't rely on what's in their heart,'' she testified. ``They don't determine the law The job of the judge is to apply the law. And it's not the heart that compels conclusions in cases. It's the law.'' She, in fact, has never used the word ``empathy'' in any of her decisions in more than 3,000 cases or the nearly 400 opinions she has written. Nor has she ever used it to describe her judicial philosophy in any speech or article. Her decisions have been based on established precedent and a respect for the limited role of a judge. But every judge, even Supreme Court Justices, are shaped by the experiences of their lives. One recent Supreme Court nominee testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that he would bring to the court ``an understanding and the ability to stand in the shoes of other people across a broad spectrum.'' That was Justice Clarence Thomas. Another acknowledged being influenced by the fact he came from a family of immigrants. ``When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account,'' he said. That was Justice Samuel Alito. Another touted his status as a racial minority in expressing his commitment to a society without discrimination. ``I am a member of a racial minority myself, suffered, I expect, some minor discrimination in my years,'' he said. That was Justice Antonin Scalia. I don't know why anyone would think gender and ethnicity do not inform one's worldview. How could it be otherwise? ``We're all creatures of our upbringing,'' Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once observed. So, too, is Judge Sotomayor. But that does not mean she will not judge fairly. There is nothing in her long career to suggest otherwise. Above all, in fact, Judge Sotomayor will bring to the court a keen legal mind to the court and an extraordinary record of following, defending and upholding the rule of law. It is no wonder that she earned a ``well qualified'' rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating available in the ABA's evaluation of Federal judicial nominees' credentials, a process the organization of legal professionals has conducted for more than 50 years. Our Nation's highest court will certainly benefit from Judge Sotomayor's scholarship, her years on the Federal bench and the uniquely American aspects of her life. But as I noted earlier, the High Court's Justices will also benefit from Judge Sotomayor's years as a prosecutor, from having someone among them who has been on the front lines in the fight against chaos and violence of the city, someone who has seen up close the awful toll crime exacts on its victims, someone who has stared down evil and who has sent the most evil to prison for life. Judge Sotomayor's experience on the bench and her experiences in life have given her a keen sense of compassion and an unique understanding of everyday Americans--qualities that will serve her well as an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, qualities that will serve our country well in the Court's deliberations. It is clear she understands that our Nation is defined by the great struggle of individuals to earn and protect their rights. I believe Judge Sotomayor will protect those rights, which did not come easily--access to the court house and the school house, civil rights, privacy rights, voting rights, antidiscrimination laws, all the result of bloodshed and loss of life, all written into law in a fight, all requiring constant vigilance to make sure they are enforced and maintained. Do I overstate the importance of vigilance? Hardly. Just a few short months ago, the Court heard oral arguments in a case challenging the constitutionality of the reenacted Voting Rights Act. The act remained intact. But the fact that the Court heard the case is cause for concern that even a slight shift in the makeup of the Court could weaken or undo laws that protect the rights and well being of the American people. It was the late Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who said that ``the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.'' I believe Judge Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court--indeed, her entire career, as a prosecutor, as a district judge, as an appeals court judge--is part of that arc bending toward justice. Mr. President, I proudly support her nomination and urge all my colleagues to do the same. A vote to confirm Judge Sotomayor will be a high mark in the history of the Senate and in the history of this country. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Leahy, I ask unanimous consent that a letter and statement of support for the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to be a Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court from the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was pleased to work with Senator Dodd to enact this legislation to help tenants affected by foreclosures. No one in the Senate has worked harder to fight against the scourge of foreclosures than Chairman Dodd. As a former member of the Senate Banking Committee, I know Chairman Dodd has tirelessly fought to assist low and moderate-income families and to help tenants who need protections from foreclosures or unscrupulous landlords. Without his efforts, families in Connecticut and across the Nation would not have access to critically needed protections and many more American families would be facing foreclosure. I agree with Chairman Dodd that it is important that persons and entities acquiring properties by foreclosure follow the law, and that tenant families obtain the benefits the law was intended to provide. I also agree with Chairman Dodd's statement of the intent of the legislation. As the chairman stated, the law was intended to provide all bona fide tenants, who began renting prior to transfer of title by foreclosure of their rental property, be given at least 90 days' notice before being required to vacate the property. In addition, these bona fide tenants are allowed to remain in place for the remainder of any leases entered into prior to the transfer of title by foreclosure. These leases may be terminated earlier only if the property is transferred to someone who intends to reside in the property and only if the tenants are given at least 90 days' notice of the fact of such sale. Successors in interest to properties with section 8 housing choice voucher tenants automatically assume the obligations of the former owner under the Housing Assistance Payments contract. Both the Federal Reserve and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have acted quickly to issue notifications to the entities that they regulate describing the law in the same way. Their notifications stated how regulated institutions are expected to comply with the terms of the act. These regulatory actions are crucial for the proper implementation of the act because foreclosing entities, who often wind up owning the properties after the foreclosure, have a responsibility to obey the law. Families in these precarious circumstances should not be forced individually to assert their rights under the law.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Kyl and Senator Levin for working out a second-degree amendment last week to Senator Kyl's earlier amendment, No. 1760, to the National Defense Authorization Act relating to the post-START agreement that the United States is negotiating with the Russian Federation. In my view, the earlier amendment--and section 1239 of the House version of the NDAA, on which that amendment was based--would have undermined the constitutional role of the Senate as the body that considers treaties, as well as the President's role in negotiating treaties. The Senate decided wisely not to adopt the House approach of trying to bar U.S. compliance with a treaty before the treaty has even been negotiated. The substitute amendment we adopted last week was a good result. The bill approved by the Senate, as amended by Senator Kyl's modified amendment, would require the President to report to the Congress on his plan to enhance the safety, security and reliability of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile, to modernize the nuclear weapons complex, and to maintain the delivery platforms. I would encourage the administration to see that requirement not as a burden, but as an opportunity. If U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty is to be approved by the Senate, Members will have to be convinced that the executive branch is prepared to sustain our nuclear deterrence by maintaining a stockpile of safe, secure, and reliable nuclear weapons, without resorting to nuclear testing. This report requirement underscores that concern and the need to address it forthrightly. I believe that this administration has the will to maintain our nuclear stockpile, and the successes of stockpile stewardship over the last decade have been greater than even its proponents predicted when we last considered CTBT. The report required by this amendment would offer an opportunity to explain to the Senate how far we have come, where we are going next, and how we will fund stockpile stewardship to ensure that we will sustain our deterrent posture even as the United States works with other countries to reduce the numbers and importance of these weapons worldwide. It may be only a preliminary report, if the National Defense Authorization Act is enacted well before the Nuclear Posture Review and the President's fiscal year 2011 budget request are completed, but it will still be an opportunity to educate the Senate. The Kyl amendment as modified also states that the Senate urges the President to maintain his position that the post-START agreement will not contain limitations on ballistic missile defense systems, space capabilities, or advanced conventional weapons systems of the United States. I am absolutely confident, based on the Obama-Medvedev statements of April 1 and July 6, 2009, that their instructions to negotiators are not to include such limitations in the agreement. For example, there will be ``a provision on the interrelationship of strategic offensive and strategic defensive arms,'' but ``a provision'' does not mean a limitation on U.S. missile defense or space capabilities. Similarly, the existing START Treaty has ``a provision'' regarding antiballistic missile systems but does not limit those systems. Regarding the Senate's desire to avoid limitations on ``advanced conventional weapons,'' I would just emphasize that the adoption of this substitute amendment is not intended to be a backdoor way to oppose limitations on strategic delivery vehicles. In short, I believe that the Kyl substitute amendment adopted last week should do no harm and that the administration can use it to begin the process of educating the Senate on a matter we will have to address in any event. Again, I commend Senators Kyl and Levin for reaching this result.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the past 6 months, the administration has been busy laying the groundwork for a new development agenda. First, the President issued a bold 2010 international affairs budget that significantly increases funding for vital programs in Pakistan and Afghanistan, begins to rebuild our diplomatic and development capacity, and renews our commitment to essential programs from education to HIV/ AIDS and hunger. Then, earlier this month, President Obama and other G8 leaders announced a $20 billion food security partnership to provide small farmers in poor countries with the seeds, fertilizers, and equipment they need to break a decades-long cycle of hunger, malnutrition and dependency. Finally, the State Department unveiled plans for a ``Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,'' a comprehensive assessment designed to improve policy, strategy, and planning at the State Department. While we are still awaiting a nominee to head the U.S. Agency for International Development I am confident that a name will soon be forthcoming. These are welcome changes that demonstrate this Administration's commitment to a vigorous reform process and a bold development plan. Congress will be a strong partner in those efforts--providing the resources, legislation, and authorities to ensure that our development programs are funded and designed to meet our priorities. While there is some debate on what form foreign aid reform should take, there is a broad consensus in the development community about why reform matters. Experts agree that the strength of our development programs is directly linked to success or failure in front-line states like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They agree that USAID is more critical to achieving our foreign policy objectives than ever before--yet it lacks the tools, capacity and expertise to fulfill its mission. They agree that too often decision-makers lack basic information about the actual impact of our development programs. They also agree that excessive bureaucracy and regulations and fragmented coordination are hampering our efforts to swiftly and effectively deliver assistance. And they agree that even as we plan for broad, fundamental reform, there are many steps we can take in the interim to dramatically improve the effectiveness of our foreign aid efforts. We assembled a small bipartisan Senate working group to formulate legislation that makes short-term improvements while setting the stage for longer-term reform. Senators Lugar, Menendez, Corker and I have been developing initial reform legislation that we believe goes a long way towards improving our short-term capacity to deliver foreign aid in a more accountable, thoughtful and strategic manner. One provision in the bill that we believe is particularly important establishes an independent evaluation group, based in the executive branch, to measure and evaluate the impact and results of all U.S. foreign aid programs, across all departments and agencies. This new institution--the Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance--can address a fundamental knowledge gap in our foreign aid programs--quite simply, it will help us understand which programs work, which do not, and why. I want to emphasize, this legislation only represents the first step in a longer reform process. But we believe it sends an important bipartisan signal that foreign aid reform will be a priority for this committee in the years ahead. I am pleased that Senators Risch and Cardin will join as original cosponsors to the bill. When John F. Kennedy spoke at the founding of USAID, in 1961, he articulated a basic truth about our foreign policy. We cannot escape our moral obligation to be a wise leader in the community of free nations. Kennedy warned that--``To fail to meet those obligations now would be disastrous; and, in the long run, more expensive. For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own security would be endangered and our prosperity imperiled.'' Just substitute violent extremism for totalitarianism and the quote is as accurate today as it was then. Just as we did in Marshall's time and Kennedy's time, America today has a chance to return to a foreign policy that is not just seen by people everywhere, but felt and lived, one that translates our promises into real value and real progress on the ground--one that improves people's daily lives, inspires them, and earns their respect. The good news is that, as we rebuild our civilian institutions, there will so many chances to lead in the process. We are living in a moment of volatility, but also--emphatically--a moment of possibility. Infant mortality rates dropped by 27 percent worldwide since 1990. By 2015, let us cut under-five mortality by 2/3. Life expectancy is eight years higher than it was in 1990--but we can do better by cutting hunger and poverty in half and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDs, malaria and other major diseases. Primary school enrollment has increased by 10 percent--it is time we made it universal. While we are at it, let us eliminate gender disparity in education once and for all. History teaches us that America is safest and strongest when we understand that our security will not be protected by military means alone. It must be protected as well by our generosity, by our example, by powerful outreach, and by instilling a palpable sense in the people of the world that we understand--and share their destiny. That has always inspired people, and it always will. It undercuts our enemies, it empowers our friends--and it keeps us safer.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the past 6 months, the administration has been busy laying the groundwork for a new development agenda. First, the President issued a bold 2010 international affairs budget that significantly increases funding for vital programs in Pakistan and Afghanistan, begins to rebuild our diplomatic and development capacity, and renews our commitment to essential programs from education to HIV/ AIDS and hunger. Then, earlier this month, President Obama and other G8 leaders announced a $20 billion food security partnership to provide small farmers in poor countries with the seeds, fertilizers, and equipment they need to break a decades-long cycle of hunger, malnutrition and dependency. Finally, the State Department unveiled plans for a ``Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review,'' a comprehensive assessment designed to improve policy, strategy, and planning at the State Department. While we are still awaiting a nominee to head the U.S. Agency for International Development I am confident that a name will soon be forthcoming. These are welcome changes that demonstrate this Administration's commitment to a vigorous reform process and a bold development plan. Congress will be a strong partner in those efforts--providing the resources, legislation, and authorities to ensure that our development programs are funded and designed to meet our priorities. While there is some debate on what form foreign aid reform should take, there is a broad consensus in the development community about why reform matters. Experts agree that the strength of our development programs is directly linked to success or failure in front-line states like Afghanistan and Pakistan. They agree that USAID is more critical to achieving our foreign policy objectives than ever before--yet it lacks the tools, capacity and expertise to fulfill its mission. They agree that too often decision-makers lack basic information about the actual impact of our development programs. They also agree that excessive bureaucracy and regulations and fragmented coordination are hampering our efforts to swiftly and effectively deliver assistance. And they agree that even as we plan for broad, fundamental reform, there are many steps we can take in the interim to dramatically improve the effectiveness of our foreign aid efforts. We assembled a small bipartisan Senate working group to formulate legislation that makes short-term improvements while setting the stage for longer-term reform. Senators Lugar, Menendez, Corker and I have been developing initial reform legislation that we believe goes a long way towards improving our short-term capacity to deliver foreign aid in a more accountable, thoughtful and strategic manner. One provision in the bill that we believe is particularly important establishes an independent evaluation group, based in the executive branch, to measure and evaluate the impact and results of all U.S. foreign aid programs, across all departments and agencies. This new institution--the Council on Research and Evaluation of Foreign Assistance--can address a fundamental knowledge gap in our foreign aid programs--quite simply, it will help us understand which programs work, which do not, and why. I want to emphasize, this legislation only represents the first step in a longer reform process. But we believe it sends an important bipartisan signal that foreign aid reform will be a priority for this committee in the years ahead. I am pleased that Senators Risch and Cardin will join as original cosponsors to the bill. When John F. Kennedy spoke at the founding of USAID, in 1961, he articulated a basic truth about our foreign policy. We cannot escape our moral obligation to be a wise leader in the community of free nations. Kennedy warned that--``To fail to meet those obligations now would be disastrous; and, in the long run, more expensive. For widespread poverty and chaos lead to a collapse of existing political and social structures which would inevitably invite the advance of totalitarianism into every weak and unstable area. Thus our own security would be endangered and our prosperity imperiled.'' Just substitute violent extremism for totalitarianism and the quote is as accurate today as it was then. Just as we did in Marshall's time and Kennedy's time, America today has a chance to return to a foreign policy that is not just seen by people everywhere, but felt and lived, one that translates our promises into real value and real progress on the ground--one that improves people's daily lives, inspires them, and earns their respect. The good news is that, as we rebuild our civilian institutions, there will so many chances to lead in the process. We are living in a moment of volatility, but also--emphatically--a moment of possibility. Infant mortality rates dropped by 27 percent worldwide since 1990. By 2015, let us cut under-five mortality by 2/3. Life expectancy is eight years higher than it was in 1990--but we can do better by cutting hunger and poverty in half and reversing the spread of HIV/AIDs, malaria and other major diseases. Primary school enrollment has increased by 10 percent--it is time we made it universal. While we are at it, let us eliminate gender disparity in education once and for all. History teaches us that America is safest and strongest when we understand that our security will not be protected by military means alone. It must be protected as well by our generosity, by our example, by powerful outreach, and by instilling a palpable sense in the people of the world that we understand--and share their destiny. That has always inspired people, and it always will. It undercuts our enemies, it empowers our friends--and it keeps us safer.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I wish to speak about women in Afghanistan. After months of collaborative discussions between women's advocacy groups and the Government of Afghanistan, the Elimination of Violence Against Women Act was just signed by Executive decree. I applaud the women who pushed for this bill, and those in the government who jointly prepared it. It represents transparency and collaboration between civil society and the government, something we should all congratulate. The bill will head to Parliament for final review when it reconvenes next week. It is my strong hope that Parliament review the law and pass it without delay, ensuring all protections remain intact. This bill provides real criminal sanctions for violence against women, and puts specific responsibilities onto the shoulders of government ministries. When we think of the abuse and repression exercised against women during the Taliban regime, it is hard not to feel encouraged by the very existence of this act, let alone its prospect for enactment. Many, quite plausibly, will say that this law cannot be fully implemented anywhere in Afghanistan, as access to justice for women in the courts and in traditional councils is all too often out of reach, and because of the societal discrimination that women still suffer. Justice must be accessible to women in Afghanistan on an equal basis to men, or Afghanistan will never tap into the true, vast potential of the women of that country. This law is a giant step for the entire country in rejecting violence against women, but now the Parliament must take the final step to pass the law as it is, with all protections intact. I must also mention the controversial Shia Personal Status Law that was also signed by Executive decree. It was drafted without transparency, and aimed to codify degrading practices that exist in some households and communities. Unlike the Elimination of Violence Against Women Act, civil society was not included during the drafting and debate of the law in Parliament. While women's civil organizations were able to force some amendments to the bill just before the president's signature, they were not able to fully cleanse the bill of some harmful provisions. Now that the bill has been signed, I call on the Government of Afghanistan to communicate widely and openly about the final substance of the law. The timing of this is vital. Afghanistan is about to go to the polls for presidential and provincial elections, and all eyes will be watching how and to what extent women participate. Women's access to the polls is imperative, and the value of their vote must be considered by the candidates.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I rise to join my colleague, Senator Kennedy, in opposing the Lieberman amendment to eliminate funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine. I disagree with the arguments that were just made by the Senator from Georgia who actually is inaccurate by saying it is going to take away a weapon system from our military at the current time. It doesn't take any weapon system away whatsoever. It simply changes the schedule of production with respect to the C-130s, but all of the C-130s will be built. So no system is taken away. It is important to try to be accurate about what is at stake here. As does Senator Kennedy and a lot of other people, including Senator Bayh and others, I believe the alternative engine is critical to reduce risks to our forces, to protect against cost overruns, to preserve the U.S. industrial manufacturing base, and to support our international partners. It is a little strange, I might add, to have some of our friends on the other side of the aisle who are usually quick to come up here and support competition in the American marketplace arguing that we shouldn't have competition and that we ought to have a single-source production for engines, where we have already seen that there are problems frequently in those single-source production lines. I strongly support the second-degree amendment offered by Senator Bayh and Senator Kennedy that would provide more than $156 million for the management reserves of the Joint Strike Fighter Program and more than $280 million for the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. This will allow the Senate to preserve funding for the vital Marine Corps helicopters without eliminating competition for the Joint Strike Fighter's competitive alternative engine program. Let me say the funding for the Joint Strike Fighter alternative engine has been important to Senator Kennedy for a long period of time. As we all know, he is being treated back in Massachusetts and is not here today, but his statement in support of the amendment he is offering with Senator Bayh has already been put into the Record by Senator Bayh. I wish to simply reference one thing Senator Kennedy has said: Competition for the Joint Strike Fighter engine has compelling advantages and avoids past pitfalls. Dual-sourcing will build vital operational redundancy into the fleet, avoid a single point of failure for the engine malfunctions and spare part shortages experienced in the past with other fleet-wide groundings. Competition delivers an inherent incentive for manufacturers to absorb and contain cost growth, even as it encourages responsiveness by contractors, continuous product improvement, and innovation. All of us know that is the way we are most effective at producing all of our goods in this country. We do it through competition. It is that kind of competition that spurs innovation, and it avoids cost overruns. Senator Kennedy is 100 percent accurate in his analysis of this issue, and I hope Senators will weigh his measurement of this based on his years of experience on the Armed Services Committee as well as on the facts regarding this particular engine proposition. The alternate engine program spreads capability and capacity across the U.S. industrial base. What it does is it ensures the production, maintenance, and availability of critical components so they are not concentrated in the hands of one single producer. Why does that matter? Well, the current engine for the Joint Strike Fighter has had testing issues. It is simply not appropriate to stand here and suggest that everything is absolutely hunky-dory with the single-source program. The fact is, there have been two engine blade failures within the past 2 years requiring a redesign, remanufacture, and delays in the flight test program. In fact, the engine has yet to even be flight tested in the most stressing flight regime--the vertical landing mode. Those tests have been delayed for up to 2 years, and they are now scheduled to take place in September. It is precisely that kind of delay that begs for this kind of alternative engine program. In fact, the 2007 Institute of Defense Analysis study concluded: Competition has the potential to bring benefits in addition to reduced prices, including force readiness, contractor responsiveness, and industrial base breadth. So I don't believe it is in the best interests of our military to have the major part of the fighter fleet dependent on a single-engine type provided by a single manufacturer. It is simply too risky, and experience tells us it is too risky. In the 1970s, many of the F-15s and F-16 fleets were grounded as a result of reliability and durability issues because the aircraft were dependent on one engine type. Similarly, the AV-8 Harrier was grounded for 11 months due to engine problems. With over 2,400 F-35s currently planned for procurement and each of the services going to be dependent on one engine and one aircraft type for the vast majority of its capability, it simply doesn't make sense to put all of it into one engine manufacturer--one engine and one producer. We certainly don't want to take the risk of the entire F-35 fleet being grounded. Competition will avoid that potential. So I ask my colleagues to oppose the Lieberman amendment, support the Bayh-Kennedy amendment to provide additional funding to the Joint Strike Fighter Program and to the Marine Corps helicopter fleet. I believe that is the way we best eliminate risk and best serve the armed services and the needs of this particular aircraft. Madam President, I reserve the remainder of the time to Senator Bayh. Does the Senator from Ohio wish to speak?