John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the fact is, this is a loan over which the United States keeps control. We are part of the decision-making of any lending that might take place under this. It is renewable under the New Arrangements for Borrowing Agreement, renewable every 5 years. If we do not renew it, it comes back. Moreover, it is only used in emergency if the other funds of the IMF run down. This is for American workers. We have a lot of people in America whose jobs depend on their ability to export goods. The fact is, if those emerging markets start to fade, not only do we lose the economic upside of those markets but we also run the risk that governments fail. We have already had four governments that failed because of the economic crisis. The fact is, if they continue to in other places that are more fragile, then you wind up picking up the costs in the long run in potential military conflict, failed states, increased capacity for people to appeal to terrorism and the volatility of the politics of those regions. This is not something we are doing without American interests being squarely on the table--economic interests and national security interests. I repeat, it has broad-based bipartisan support. I hope colleagues will take due note of that. With respect to the economics of this, let me share one other quote, which is a pretty important one. Dennis Blair, Admiral Blair, the Director of National Intelligence, was recently quoted as saying, about the first crisis the United States faces today, the most significant crisis we face today, ``the primary, near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications.'' This is not just an economic vote, this is a national security vote. When you have a group from Jim Baker to General Scowcroft, to Henry Kissinger, and others all suggesting this is in our long-term and important interest, I think we ought to listen pretty carefully. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum, and I ask unanimous consent that the time be charged to both sides.

Mr. KERRY. How much time remains?

Mr. KERRY. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this makes all the sense in the world. In fact, Senator Gregg, former chairman, now ranking member of the Budget Committee, gave an excellent summary of exactly what this is. It is not an expenditure. It is a letter of credit. It stabilizes countries. It is an insurance policy. It has always been repaid. As Senator Gregg said, even the $5 billion which the CBO scores this at is not accurate because the money is never laid out. This is not a risky exercise because we make money through the interest. This is an asset that we create that is traded against the letter of credit. Let me answer my colleague. He asked the question about the 5 years. Paragraph 17 of the IMF Articles of the New Arrangements to Borrow has a provision for withdrawal from membership. A participating member can withdraw. At that time, the money comes back to you. You cease to have your commitment on the line. Paragraph 19 of the IMF Articles of the New Arrangements to Borrow states: This decision shall continue in existence for five years from its effective date. When considering a renewal of this decision for the period following the five-year period referred to in this paragraph 19 . . . the Fund and the participants shall review the functioning of this decision.

Mr. KERRY. I will yield on his time.

Mr. KERRY. I am reading from the current Articles of the IMF's New Arrangements to Borrow. This is the operative agreement for the NAB, on which this lending takes place. Let me make it clear, why this is furthering our interests. The fact is, in South Carolina, they have a lot of businesses that export. From the beginning of this year exports in the U.S. were down 23 percent. They were down 23 percent because countries' economies around the world are hurting. As Secretary Kissinger, General Scowcroft, and the Chamber of Commerce all agree, this is important for American business. The fact is, between 2003 and 2008, exports grew by 8 percent per year in real terms. We have a correlation in our exports to the growth of other countries. There has been a 95-percent correlation in that growth. The fact is, the share of all U.S. growth attributable to export growth went from 25 percent in 2003, to 50 percent in 2007, to 70 percent in 2008. We benefit. That rise of exports from 25 percent to 70 percent is to the benefit of American business. Unfortunately, those exports peaked in July of last year. Most of our partners are now in recession. Real exports are now 23 percent lower. You are looking at a reduction in American GDP, if you don't provide this line of credit. President Obama went to London. He led the world in getting a $500 billion agreement to help support these countries to revive their economies. When you consider the money we have spent in the Cold War to break the Eastern Bloc away from the Soviet Union and, ultimately, they have adopted our economic system, they are working as partners now, many of them members of NATO. Their economies are hurting. We benefit if those States don't go into an economic implosion. This is a national security issue for the United States. It is a plain and simple, self-interest economic issue for the United States. Most importantly, we don't spend money. This is a deposit fund in an account which is interest bearing to the United States. It is a good investment. Historically, we have not lost money. I know Senator Lugar will vote against this amendment. Senator Gregg and others. I hope colleagues will resoundingly reject this ill-advised amendment.

Mr. KERRY. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, later today, or at some point in time, with respect to the supplemental, there will be an amendment that will seek to strike funds that have been put in this supplemental for the purpose of providing additional loan money to the IMF. I would like to talk about that for a moment because this is a proposal of the President which has the bipartisan support of members of the Foreign Relations Committee, and it has serious implications with respect to the health of the world's economy. It also has serious implications with respect to America's leadership. Madam President, everybody understands that the United States of America is not alone in wrestling with an economic crisis that is global at this point. We all understand how it began. We understand the implications of our own irresponsibility with respect to the regulatory process and the greed and other excesses that drove what happened on Wall Street and what has affected the lives of millions of Americans, but it has also affected the lives of people around the globe. The fact is, what started in the United States has now spread to countries around the world, and it continues to reverberate beyond our financial systems into all of our economies. The global economic crisis is in fact seriously affecting emerging markets and developing countries, and they are now experiencing severe economic declines and massive withdrawals of capital. We don't know yet where this crisis will end, but we know we do have an ability to be able to address this crisis in various ways. One of the most powerful instruments, one of the most powerful tools available to the leaders of the governmental financial marketplace, is the IMF itself. President Obama understood early on that our actions on the global stage in response to this financial and economic crisis would be a very important test of America's leadership. That is why in his first major meeting abroad at the G-20 leader summit in London, the President called for an expansion of the IMF's new arrangements to borrow. It is often referred to just as the NAB--the new arrangements to borrow. The President proposed expanding that up to about $500 billion in order to help the world's economies avoid collapse. This crisis of the last months has offered us a vivid illustration of how the increasing interconnectedness of our global economic financial system actually comes with a greater susceptibility to systemic risk. The IMF contains risk, deals with risk, minimizes risk by serving as a bulwark against rolling financial failures, and it addresses volatility in the global financial system. The result of that is actually to help everybody. The NAB is a contingency fund to which many countries contribute, and today other countries are looking to the United States to deliver on our earlier commitment. Japan has committed $100 million, the European Community members have already committed $100 billion, and may well commit up to $160 billion. In the last few weeks, countries such as Canada, Switzerland, China, South Korea, Norway, Australia, the Czech Republic, India, and others have all offered commitments in the billions of dollars in order to support the IMF. The President's promise helped to galvanize this global response, and it is critical that we, the United States, having galvanized this response, having helped to lead people to the watering hole, now fulfill our obligations ourselves. We need to do our part, and we need to approve the President's request for up to $100 billion of authority. In fact, in terms of the budget authority here, this is scored at about $5 billion. Why? Because this is a loan process, and it is a loan process over which the United States continues to have input and the ability, in fact, to help make decisions. The reasons to support the President's request frankly go far beyond the need of other countries at their moment of economic vulnerability. A fortified IMF is in our interest also. There are real national security concerns about the way this crisis could trigger a political crisis around the world. It is, in fact, a crisis which has already brought down the Governments of Iceland and several east European countries. It has helped to spark riots in Europe and Southeast Asia, and it will very likely be a driving political force for a long time to come. For all the volatility that we have seen, Madam President, we value our investment in the IMF all the more for the things we have not seen. The fund has been able so far to act swiftly to stave off balance of payment crises in countries such as Pakistan. Obviously, whatever we can do to avoid economic crisis in Pakistan right now is critical to the survival of that democracy and to the ultimate success, we hope, against the insurgencies the Government of Pakistan and the people of Pakistan are fighting. We are also seeing the steps taken by the IMF thus far are also lending strong support to key U.S. allies, including Mexico, Poland, and Colombia. These are vulnerable nations with very important American interests at play. Successes obviously don't make headlines the same way that failures do, but make no mistake; IMF financing has helped to stabilize several potentially volatile situations in this crisis already. Madam President, I am not alone in warning of the security threat that is posed by this crisis. Back in March, the Director of National Intelligence, ADM Dennis Blair, testified before Congress about the risks in front of our Nation. This is what he said: The primary near-term security concern of the United States is the global economic crisis and its geopolitical implications. That is a remarkable statement coming from a person who is in the middle of struggling with potential dirty bombs and terrorism and counterterrorism and the threat of al-Qaida in various parts of the world. He nevertheless still emphasizes that the primary threat is a global economic crisis, and I believe we need to understand the full implications of it. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter signed by 14 former National Security Advisers and Secretaries of State, Defense, and Treasury, all urging us to move expeditiously to live up to the President's commitment.

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

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I emphasize that the signatures on this letter come from both sides of the aisle, from respected public servants and admired strategists, such as GEN Brent Scowcroft, Henry Kissinger, Colin Powell, James Baker, Robert Rubin, Lee Hamilton, and Paul Volcker. All of them urge us to complete the task of providing the support funding for the IMF. If there is one lesson we should take away from the worst impacts of this global crisis, it is that we should never underestimate the severity of these economic challenges or the urgency of tackling them head on rather than deferring the tough decisions. The IMF needs a robust contingency fund. Let me emphasize this is a contingency fund. This is a fund that doesn't represent money that is transferred to the IMF, and then they take on some spending spree, nor does it represent money that goes to the IMF and is used for IMF expenses. This is a direct loan program--loan only--and in the past the United States has actually made money when we have made these loans. The fact is that this financial crisis is still brewing. For example, in central and Eastern Europe, in this part of the world where we saw the Berlin Wall and a repressive Communist regime of Eastern Europe crash down 20 years ago, we see the risk that if we don't act, it is possible that the economies of Eastern Europe will come crashing down too. Then we will replace an era of promise and progress in Eastern Europe with one of soaring unemployment, instability, and a retrenchment of the influence and ideals that we have been investing in and helping those countries to put more permanently in place. The IMF is the best channel for providing balance of payment assistance to emerging and developing markets that are currently suffering as a consequence of their economies and banking systems. In some cases, political systems are collapsing around them. The alternative to having a legitimate and robust IMF to deal with countries at risk is, frankly, not a pretty one. IMF loans come with strings attached, but they are mainly financial strings not strategic strings. As we balance the domestic and global demands of this crisis, we need to be warned that in cutting corners for short-term savings, we risk creating far greater costs down the road. As it stands now, the large and urgent financing needs projected for emerging markets and developing countries cannot be met from existing IMF lending reserves. There is no cost-free, risk-free option, and lendings to the new arrangements for borrowing allows us to leverage our contribution toward a global capacity to manage economic risks. Managing those risks benefits all of us. The reasons to act, in fact, go well beyond foreign policy interests. This is not a foreign policy issue. In fact, our domestic economic interests are also vulnerable if we fail to stem economic crises in other countries. Why is that? Well, for a very simple reason. Expanding the IMF's NAB resources is actually essential to our overall strategy for restoring the health of the U.S. economy, for our exports, and it helps us to secure U.S. jobs. Some in America might take the short-term view. We have heard that before. Some in America may try to appeal to the lowest common denominator and say to people: Well, why on Earth are we sending money to some fund that might, in fact, help a foreign country, when we ought to be just focused on the bailout at home? Well, the reality is that is a completely, totally false choice. The truth is, America's economic recovery depends not just on our own stimulus package and on spending here, and not just on fiscal and monetary policy and programs that sustain domestic demand, but we also need to sustain demand abroad. We sell to those countries. We have millions of Americans making products that go to those countries and, in fact, those emerging markets in developing countries have been, up until now, some of the best growth opportunities for American investment and for American jobs to be able to supply goods. Economic growth abroad helps us to kick economic growth into gear at home. That is why we need the IMF to help protect the markets we export to and from which they import American products. Let me just be specific about that. Between 2003 and 2008, U.S. exports grew by 8 percent per year in real terms. Since 2000, our exports show a 95-percent correlation to foreign country growth rates. In large part, our economy was benefiting from the rapid growth of other economies in other parts of the world. During that period, the role of exports in driving American economic growth actually increased. The share of all U.S. growth attributable to export growth rose from 25 percent in 2003 to almost 50 percent in 2007, and then almost 70 percent in 2008. Now, unfortunately, our exports peaked in July of last year, and they have been falling ever since then. Most of our partners are in recession. In the first quarter of 2009, our real exports were 23 percent lower than in the first quarter of 2008. Our export decline is now contributing to the recession in the United States. With an export share in GDP of 12 percent, a 23-percent decline of that share of GDP, if you sustain that 23 percent over the course of the year it actually makes a negative contribution to the GDP of the United States of 2.5 percent. In other words, if our domestic demand were stagnant, our GDP would fall by nearly 3 percent. With that, we lose a lot of jobs and a lot of the struggle to get our economy back into gear just becomes that much more complicated and that much more delayed. Congress passed, and the President signed, a stimulus plan that is designed to boost domestic demand. But if we fail to act, all the money we have spent to stimulate our own economy could actually be offset completely by the decline in exports. We need to help these foreign countries lift themselves out of recession. Our recovery now depends on many of these countries that are now at risk. Some foreign countries can take care of themselves with a stimulus of their own and in cleaning up their own banking sectors. But many other countries, especially emerging market economies, have been so hard hit that they need a helping hand. Some countries have been cut off abruptly from capital markets and shut out of the credit markets by the banking problems originating in the United States and Europe. Let me give an example. We exported to a lot of countries our notions about how one ought to bank and how you, in fact, use banks to leverage and to go out and create jobs by investing in businesses. The fact is that many banks in Western Europe practiced that so effectively that they bought up banks in Eastern Europe, and so banks in parts of Eastern Europe, when they stopped lending, stopped lending because the banks in the western part of Europe are taking care of their immediate home-based problems and their capital problems, and the result is those eastern economies are particularly hard hit. This crisis actually started with us, and it is reverberating because of this and these systemic failures, and it will hurt more if it reverberates back to us because we failed to help some of those countries to hold up the export demand as well as to sustain their political systems which we have invested in very deeply since the end of the Cold War. As countries recover, the United States is going to gain. We are going to be spared the risk of an even more precipitous decline in our exports, with greater job loss. In time, our export growth will resume and people in export industries across our country are going to be able to go back to work. While we take part in a global effort to increase the NAB, we also have to shore up our influence inside the IMF and give greater voice to the emerging markets. The President is looking to increase by approximately $8 billion America's quota subscription to the IMF. These quotas actually determine how the IMF assigns voting rights, and it decides on access to IMF funding. This increase in the U.S. quota is part of a larger practice to address long overdue governance reform and create greater legitimacy for the IMF. It is also part of a two-way street. If we want major exporting companies to step up and contribute for the first time to, amongst other things, this expanded NAB facility, then we need to show that they can have a larger voice in the IMF itself. It also makes certain the United States can keep its current voting weight in order to maintain our leadership in the IMF so we have the ability to shape the future of the institution. Before I finish, I would like to directly speak to two misconceptions that I think are involved in the amendment that will seek to strike this particular portion. The first is a very important point, and I wish to emphasize it. I spoke about it a moment ago, but I really wish to emphasize it. The United States, in providing lending money to the New Arrangements to Borrow, to the IMF, is not giving away money. We are not spending money. This is a deposit fund. It goes into an account, and we get an IMF interest-bearing asset in exchange for those funds. It actually can turn out to be a good investment because, while we participate in the IMF because of the enormous benefit it brings to the United States and to the world in terms of emerging countries and their markets, in fact, the United States has earned money historically on its participation in the IMF. According to the Treasury Department's most recent report to Congress, the fact is, we have been on the plus side. This is not a payout, therefore, of the IMF; it is an exchange of assets. We put assets in the fund, and we get an interest-bearing asset in exchange for those funds. This is a particular arrangement that has worked out very sufficiently for the U.S. Treasury in the past. Second, let me be very clear on what is being asked here. The NAB, the New Arrangements to Borrow, is a contingency fund to be used only when other resources of the IMF are exhausted. The United States and other members of the NAB have control over these funds, and the IMF needs to get approval from the NAB providers in order to draw down on these funds. So we have to think of this as an insurance fund over which the United States continues to have control. We have before us legislation to replenish the IMF's resources just in time for it to be able to stand up and help fight this crisis. With this money, the IMF will be able to help many countries revive their economies. With this money, the IMF will be ready in case the crisis deepens and creates more victims. With this money, America is able to lead at a moment of crisis and keep the promise of the President and help us to sustain the viability of emerging markets and countries, which is vital in the context of the struggle against extremism and religious fanaticism and terrorism, which we see has its prime targets in places that are failing. The ability to be able to prevent that failure is in the strategic as well as in the economic interests of our country. The world is looking to us to keep our word. I urge support for the request of the President.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Energy Fairness for America Act which repeals tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. This is the third consecutive Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. Some of the provisions of prior versions of my legislations were enacted last year, but more can be done. At a time when we are trying to incentivize clean energy, we should not continue to provide unnecessary tax incentives to the oil and gas industry. The Energy Fairness for America Act would repeal the section 199 manufacturing deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil and gas. The domestic manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export-related tax benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union. Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export-related tax benefits and to replace them with a new domestic manufacturing deduction. That legislation only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the deduction to include the oil and gas industry as well. The tax code provides numerous other preferences to the oil and gas industry. This legislation would repeal provisions that do not promote low-carbon energy sources and further our addiction to oil. The Energy Fairness for America Act would repeal the credit for the crude oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells, expensing of intangible drilling costs and 60-month amortization and capitalized intangible drilling costs, exception from the passive loss rules for working interests in oil and gas properties, and percentage depletion for oil and gas wells. In addition, it would increase the amortization period from two years to seven years for geological and geophysical expenditures incurred by independent producers in connection with oil and gas exploration in the U.S. This legislation will help align our tax code with our broader energy goals. Our focus should be on lowering carbon emissions and encouraging renewable energy sources, not rewarding the oil and gas industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating these unnecessary tax breaks.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Energy Fairness for America Act which repeals tax incentives for the oil and gas industry. This is the third consecutive Congress in which I have introduced this legislation. Some of the provisions of prior versions of my legislations were enacted last year, but more can be done. At a time when we are trying to incentivize clean energy, we should not continue to provide unnecessary tax incentives to the oil and gas industry. The Energy Fairness for America Act would repeal the section 199 manufacturing deduction for income attributable to domestic production of oil and gas. The domestic manufacturing deduction was designed to replace export-related tax benefits that were successfully challenged by the European Union. Producers of oil and gas did not benefit from this tax break. Initial legislation proposed to address the repeal of the export-related tax benefits and to replace them with a new domestic manufacturing deduction. That legislation only provided the deduction to industries that benefited from the export-related tax benefits. However, the final product extended the deduction to include the oil and gas industry as well. The tax code provides numerous other preferences to the oil and gas industry. This legislation would repeal provisions that do not promote low-carbon energy sources and further our addiction to oil. The Energy Fairness for America Act would repeal the credit for the crude oil and natural gas produced from marginal wells, expensing of intangible drilling costs and 60-month amortization and capitalized intangible drilling costs, exception from the passive loss rules for working interests in oil and gas properties, and percentage depletion for oil and gas wells. In addition, it would increase the amortization period from two years to seven years for geological and geophysical expenditures incurred by independent producers in connection with oil and gas exploration in the U.S. This legislation will help align our tax code with our broader energy goals. Our focus should be on lowering carbon emissions and encouraging renewable energy sources, not rewarding the oil and gas industry. I urge my colleagues to join me in eliminating these unnecessary tax breaks.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote today on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of David Hayes to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior because I was attending a funeral. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture on the Hayes nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, through my duties in the Senate I have an opportunity to work with many foreign ambassadors to the United States. I rise today to mention the contributions of one ambassador who is leaving Washington and returning to Athens, Greece, to serve his country at the Foreign Ministry: Ambassador Alexandros Mallias. Ambassador Mallias worked hard to represent Greece and its historic culture--shared by three million Americans of Greek descent--to the United States and our Government. While the U.S. and Greece are strategic partners, working in concert on a host of issues from Afghanistan to anti-piracy operations, our shared values transcend our interests, and we hold in common a longstanding respect for democracy and freedom, whether in Boston or in Athens. During his tenure, Ambassador Mallias was particularly active with Congress, and held many presentations and briefings for Senators, Members of Congress and their staffs. I especially appreciate his efforts in helping make the recent visit of Greece's Foreign Minister, Dora Bakoyannis, whom I had the pleasure to host at a Working Coffee of the Foreign Relations Committee, so productive. The Ambassador was also involved with think tanks, advocacy groups, grassroots organizations and universities, traveling widely in the U.S. to engage civic leaders, Greek Americans, students and other people on important bilateral issues. His work with Jewish and African American communities was also significant, earning him numerous commendations, including a Martin Luther King Award. Many of us in Congress will miss his fine work and I wish him the very best.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have taken a lot of effort to try to help troubled borrowers in communities that have foreclosed properties. Here is the problem that exists. If you are a renter and living in a property that has been foreclosed on, you have nothing to do with the foreclosure, you are paying rent, you have a lease, but a lot of these people are getting kicked out of their apartments, out of their homes. What we want to do is provide them with a provision where they will have 90 days--if the people who foreclosed are going to use that residence as a primary residence. If the residence is going to continue to be a multiple-party residence where they have a number of people renting and they will continue to use it as such, we want to leave those leases in effect until the end of the lease. We are protecting legitimate, low- to moderate-income folks in America who do not get protections otherwise from being just booted out on the street, which is literally what has happened in the absence of this protection. This provision will sunset in the year 2012 and only applies to properties with legitimate leases.

Mr. KERRY. I know colleagues will support it.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there continues to be discrimination against women in the individual insurance market. As you know, the individual insurance market is often the last resort for health coverage for individuals who do not have access to an employer- sponsored plan or who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. To assist these women, I am today introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, a bill that would end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the 94.7 million women between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2007, 64 percent had insurance through an employer, 18 percent were uninsured, 13 percent were enrolled in Medicaid or another type of public insurance, and 6 percent were in the individual market. In other words, about 5.7 million American women in 2007 received health insurance on the individual market. With rising unemployment, it is likely that more women will rely on individual insurance market for coverage in the future. This market is too often a problem for women for a number of reasons. First, women are often charged more than men for insurance in the individual market. Gender rating is a common insurance practice under which most women are charged higher premiums than men for identical coverage. Federal civil rights law prevents employers with more than 15 employees from charging different premiums based on gender and other factors. This protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market. According to a recent report entitled ``Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women'' by the National Women's Law Center, a 25 year old woman can pay up to 45 percent more than a 25 year old man for the same coverage. A 40 year old woman can pay up to 48 percent more than a 40 year old man for the same coverage. A 55 year old woman can pay up to 37 percent more than a 55 year old man for the same coverage. Today, only 10 states prohibit and 2 States limit gender rating in the individual market. I am pleased that Massachusetts is one of the 10 States that prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on gender. But, we should-make sure that this prohibition is extended to every state in the nation. A second problem facing women on the individual market is that insurers may delay, deny, or limit coverage to women due to pregnancy or delivery method. Over 30 years ago with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Federal civil rights law established as sex discrimination denial of coverage for pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions in employer-based insurance policies. Unfortunately, this protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market. Individual market insurers can deny coverage to women based on a ``pre-existing condition''. If the insurer discovers that a woman applying for coverage had a Cesarean section in the past, they can: charge a higher premium; impose a waiting period during which it refuses to cover another C-section or pregnancy; or deny coverage unless the woman has been sterilized or is no longer of childbearing age. Currently, there are only 5 States which prohibit insurance carriers from refusing to sell individual health insurance coverage to applicants who have health conditions or problems. Massachusetts is one of the five states which require insurers to accept applicants regardless of health status. Again, this prohibition should be extended to every state in the nation. A third problem facing women is that the vast majority of policies do not provide coverage for maternity care. The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act specified that employers with more than 15 employees must cover pregnancy on the same basis as other medical conditions. Once again, similar protections do not exist in the individual insurance market. The National Women's Law Center recently analyzed over 3,500 individual insurance market policies and found that just 12 percent included comprehensive maternity coverage and another 9 percent provided coverage for maternity care that is not comprehensive. They also found that a limited number of insurers sell separate maternity coverage for an additional fee known as a ``rider'', but this supplemental coverage is often expensive and limited in scope. Currently, 5 States, including Massachusetts, have enacted laws requiring insurers to include coverage for maternity services in all individual health insurance policies sold in their state. Every woman should have access to these services. That is why I am introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, to end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market. It has three basic parts. First, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from charging women higher premiums than men. Gender rating is insurance discrimination based on sex and should not be tolerated. Over 40 years ago, the insurance industry voluntarily abandoned its practice of using race as a rating factor and now it is time to end rating discrimination against women. Gender rating hurts women's health by inflating premiums and creating substantial financial barriers for women seeking to obtain health care coverage. Second, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from denying or limiting coverage based on a current or past pregnancy or a past or future method of delivery. No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage to women simply by treating a pregnancy like a pre-existing condition. Similarly, they will not be able to impose waiting periods relating to a pregnancy. They will no longer be able to impose higher premiums or deductibles on women with prior Cesareans. Finally, the bill will require all insurance policies offered on the individual market to provide comprehensive maternity coverage for the full scope of maternity services from preconception through postpartum. There is a huge cost to our society by denying maternity coverage. In 2005, the costs associated with preterm birth, one of the most expensive pregnancy complications linked to lack of prenatal care, totaled over $26.2 billion. Yet, for every $1 spent on preconception care saved anywhere from $1.60 to $5.19 in maternal care costs. If women do not have the necessary maternity coverage, they will be exposed to substantial out of pocket costs. Too many women are unable to pay these costs. The average U.S. hospital cost for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery ranges from $7,500 to $15,000 and from $11,000 to $19,000 for a caesarean delivery. I believe comprehensive maternity coverage will save money and improve maternal and child health outcomes. Those currently without coverage often turn to our public safety net for assistance. Today, forty percent of all pregnancies are covered by Medicaid. We need to do everything possible to increase health outcomes for our children. The bill would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to monitor compliance with the requirements of this act. It gives the Secretary the ability to assess fines of at least $10,000 against any health insurance company that fails to submit the required data. Additionally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to issue a report by December 31, 2010 about problems any remaining for women on the individual insurance market in all 50 States. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have already endorsed the legislation including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Children's Defense Fund, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and OWL--The Voice of Midlife and Older Women. During the Senate's consideration of comprehensive health care reform, I will work with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley to make sure that discriminatory insurance practices against women are ended. I will also work with my Massachusetts colleague, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Ted Kennedy to make sure this legislation is enacted into law. As in other areas of health reform, Massachusetts is already leading the way in preventing insurers from engaging in practices that harm women. I believe the rest of the country should benefit from our experience. I find it especially appropriate to introduce this legislation as we approach Mother's Day on Sunday, May 10th and National Women's Health Week on May 10th-16th. I can think of no better gift to our mothers, daughters, and sisters than the gift of affordable and accessible insurance that meets their health needs.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1036, with a possible modification, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I am offering this amendment to address the needs of renters in properties that have been foreclosed. This amendment is cosponsored by Majority Leader Reid, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Dodd, and Senators Kennedy, Boxer, Gillibrand, and Merkley. Congress has already taken extraordinary measures to help troubled borrowers in communities where they have abandoned foreclosed properties, but Congress has done very little to help renters who have been paying their rent regularly on time but, unfortunately, they have landlords who are losing their property to foreclosure. So these renters are absolutely blameless victims in the foreclosure catastrophe that has hit the country. It is estimated that as many as one in every six mortgages in America is going to be lost to foreclosure in the next 4 years. In Massachusetts, more than 12,000 homeowners lost their homes to foreclosure last year, an increase of 62 percent in just 1 year. About 3,300 of those foreclosures involved homes with two or three units, and most of those homes had tenants who were evicted. These renters often have absolutely no idea that their home is about to be foreclosed. Depending on the State they live in, they may be evicted with absolutely no notice. Obviously, this could be particularly difficult for low-income renters who don't have the resources to relocate or even to do so very quickly. Under this amendment, tenants in any federally related mortgage loan or any dwelling or residential real property with a lease have a right to remain in the unit until the end of the existing lease. If a new purchaser intends to use the property as a primary residence, then the lease may be terminated, but the tenant has to receive 90 days' notice to vacate. So what we believe is that this provides an appropriate level of protection. It doesn't take away the right of someone who takes over the home in foreclosure to be able to then transition that property or it decides if that person is going to keep the property as a rental property, the person who already has a legitimate lease has a right to be able to stay. The provisions of this amendment would sunset. I wish to make that clear. This sunset is based on the notion that this is to deal with the current crisis, and it would sunset on December 31, 2012. Furthermore, it states specifically that none of the provisions here would affect any State and local law that provides a longer time period or other additional protections to renters. So there is nothing here that reduces the protection renters get. Let me give my colleagues a couple graphic examples. A landlord should not be allowed to come in, change the locks, and force out tenants who were there completely legitimately, with an expectation that they were coming home to their same old home. A recent story in the Boston Globe shows how devastating and, frankly, absurd this can be at times. A Dorchester, MA, man returned to the home he had been renting for the past 4 years. He found that the locks had been changed and a foreclosure notice had been placed on the door. With a neighbor's help, he managed to crawl through a second-floor window to get into the apartment. When the police arrived, he had to beg them not to be arrested. Fortunately, he was not but only because he was able to show proof he rented the apartment. Then for the next 4 months, he had to battle with the bank that then owned the building, enduring no heat, no electricity, and no water while he went through that 4-month process. This is disgraceful. Unfortunately, it is not an isolated incident. In early January, a 45-year-old former factory worker from China came home to her third-floor walkup in east Boston to find a crew of moving men removing all of her furniture. She thought she was being robbed. She didn't speak English. She pleaded with them in Chinese to stop. She ended up on the street with all of her possessions until a city clerk noticed that the eviction paperwork, which the renter had never received, had expired. A judge issued an order that allowed her to move back. But for how long and under what circumstances? These kinds of incidents show how completely vulnerable renters are to this foreclosure cycle we are witnessing. It is well documented how foreclosure is already overpowering countless numbers of homeowners who are unable to pay their mortgages, but foreclosure is also causing a rampage of sudden evictions of renters. My amendment would stop that rampage and help unsuspecting renters from falling victim to foreclosure in which they played absolutely no part. I thank the Senate Banking Committee chairman, Senator Dodd, for his support of this amendment. It will very plainly help families stay in their homes. It is a way of preventing an already grave situation being turned into one that is even more egregious and more insulting. I think Senator Dodd understands this. No one has worked harder than he has to fight against the level of foreclosures that are taking place. I appreciate his leadership and his support for the families across the Nation who are facing this kind of foreclosure problem. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, there continues to be discrimination against women in the individual insurance market. As you know, the individual insurance market is often the last resort for health coverage for individuals who do not have access to an employer- sponsored plan or who earn too much to qualify for Medicaid. To assist these women, I am today introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, a bill that would end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, of the 94.7 million women between the ages of 18 and 64 in 2007, 64 percent had insurance through an employer, 18 percent were uninsured, 13 percent were enrolled in Medicaid or another type of public insurance, and 6 percent were in the individual market. In other words, about 5.7 million American women in 2007 received health insurance on the individual market. With rising unemployment, it is likely that more women will rely on individual insurance market for coverage in the future. This market is too often a problem for women for a number of reasons. First, women are often charged more than men for insurance in the individual market. Gender rating is a common insurance practice under which most women are charged higher premiums than men for identical coverage. Federal civil rights law prevents employers with more than 15 employees from charging different premiums based on gender and other factors. This protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market. According to a recent report entitled ``Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women'' by the National Women's Law Center, a 25 year old woman can pay up to 45 percent more than a 25 year old man for the same coverage. A 40 year old woman can pay up to 48 percent more than a 40 year old man for the same coverage. A 55 year old woman can pay up to 37 percent more than a 55 year old man for the same coverage. Today, only 10 states prohibit and 2 States limit gender rating in the individual market. I am pleased that Massachusetts is one of the 10 States that prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on gender. But, we should-make sure that this prohibition is extended to every state in the nation. A second problem facing women on the individual market is that insurers may delay, deny, or limit coverage to women due to pregnancy or delivery method. Over 30 years ago with the passage of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Federal civil rights law established as sex discrimination denial of coverage for pregnancy, childbirth and related conditions in employer-based insurance policies. Unfortunately, this protection is not extended to policies sold in the individual insurance market. Individual market insurers can deny coverage to women based on a ``pre-existing condition''. If the insurer discovers that a woman applying for coverage had a Cesarean section in the past, they can: charge a higher premium; impose a waiting period during which it refuses to cover another C-section or pregnancy; or deny coverage unless the woman has been sterilized or is no longer of childbearing age. Currently, there are only 5 States which prohibit insurance carriers from refusing to sell individual health insurance coverage to applicants who have health conditions or problems. Massachusetts is one of the five states which require insurers to accept applicants regardless of health status. Again, this prohibition should be extended to every state in the nation. A third problem facing women is that the vast majority of policies do not provide coverage for maternity care. The 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act specified that employers with more than 15 employees must cover pregnancy on the same basis as other medical conditions. Once again, similar protections do not exist in the individual insurance market. The National Women's Law Center recently analyzed over 3,500 individual insurance market policies and found that just 12 percent included comprehensive maternity coverage and another 9 percent provided coverage for maternity care that is not comprehensive. They also found that a limited number of insurers sell separate maternity coverage for an additional fee known as a ``rider'', but this supplemental coverage is often expensive and limited in scope. Currently, 5 States, including Massachusetts, have enacted laws requiring insurers to include coverage for maternity services in all individual health insurance policies sold in their state. Every woman should have access to these services. That is why I am introducing the Women's Health Insurance Fairness Act of 2009, to end the discrimination against women who seek to purchase an insurance policy on the individual market. It has three basic parts. First, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from charging women higher premiums than men. Gender rating is insurance discrimination based on sex and should not be tolerated. Over 40 years ago, the insurance industry voluntarily abandoned its practice of using race as a rating factor and now it is time to end rating discrimination against women. Gender rating hurts women's health by inflating premiums and creating substantial financial barriers for women seeking to obtain health care coverage. Second, the bill prevents insurers in the individual market from denying or limiting coverage based on a current or past pregnancy or a past or future method of delivery. No longer will insurance companies be able to deny coverage to women simply by treating a pregnancy like a pre-existing condition. Similarly, they will not be able to impose waiting periods relating to a pregnancy. They will no longer be able to impose higher premiums or deductibles on women with prior Cesareans. Finally, the bill will require all insurance policies offered on the individual market to provide comprehensive maternity coverage for the full scope of maternity services from preconception through postpartum. There is a huge cost to our society by denying maternity coverage. In 2005, the costs associated with preterm birth, one of the most expensive pregnancy complications linked to lack of prenatal care, totaled over $26.2 billion. Yet, for every $1 spent on preconception care saved anywhere from $1.60 to $5.19 in maternal care costs. If women do not have the necessary maternity coverage, they will be exposed to substantial out of pocket costs. Too many women are unable to pay these costs. The average U.S. hospital cost for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery ranges from $7,500 to $15,000 and from $11,000 to $19,000 for a caesarean delivery. I believe comprehensive maternity coverage will save money and improve maternal and child health outcomes. Those currently without coverage often turn to our public safety net for assistance. Today, forty percent of all pregnancies are covered by Medicaid. We need to do everything possible to increase health outcomes for our children. The bill would provide the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to monitor compliance with the requirements of this act. It gives the Secretary the ability to assess fines of at least $10,000 against any health insurance company that fails to submit the required data. Additionally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to issue a report by December 31, 2010 about problems any remaining for women on the individual insurance market in all 50 States. I would like to thank a number of organizations who have already endorsed the legislation including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Children's Defense Fund, Consumers Union, Families USA, the National Partnership for Women & Families, and OWL--The Voice of Midlife and Older Women. During the Senate's consideration of comprehensive health care reform, I will work with Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member Grassley to make sure that discriminatory insurance practices against women are ended. I will also work with my Massachusetts colleague, Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Chairman Ted Kennedy to make sure this legislation is enacted into law. As in other areas of health reform, Massachusetts is already leading the way in preventing insurers from engaging in practices that harm women. I believe the rest of the country should benefit from our experience. I find it especially appropriate to introduce this legislation as we approach Mother's Day on Sunday, May 10th and National Women's Health Week on May 10th-16th. I can think of no better gift to our mothers, daughters, and sisters than the gift of affordable and accessible insurance that meets their health needs.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise today to join my colleague, the ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Lugar, in introducing what we consider to be an important piece of legislation from our committee and an important initiative for the administration and for the Congress and the American people. We are joining today to introduce the Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act. I believe the legislation has already been placed at the desk. This is legislation that will fundamentally change America's policy toward Pakistan, and I hope over time it will fundamentally change America's relationship with the people of Pakistan as well. I especially thank Senator Lugar for his partnership in crafting this legislation and for his ongoing leadership on this issue. It is hard to overstate the importance of Pakistan to our national security. In fact, every day the newspapers are full of events that are transpiring there and of the challenges we face. Pakistan is a nation which could either serve as a force for stability and progress in a volatile region or it could become an epicenter for radicalism and violence on a cataclysmic scale. This is a nation of striking contradictions and on divergent paths forward. On one hand, we all know Pakistan is a nation where Osama bin Laden and the leadership of al-Qaida have found sanctuary for the past 7 years--a haven from which they and their confederates have plotted and carried out attacks on their host country, on neighboring countries, and on sites around the globe--a nation that has in recent weeks seen the Taliban advance to within 60 miles of its capital, and a nation with a full arsenal of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles capable of delivering them anywhere in a 1,000-kilometer range. On the other hand, Pakistan is also a nation whose 170 million people are overwhelmingly moderate, overwhelmingly committed to democracy and rule of law; a major non-NATO ally that has sacrificed the lives of 1,500 of its soldiers and police in the fight against terrorism and insurgency; and a nation that has lost more of its citizens to the scourge of terrorism than all but a tiny handful of countries throughout the world. In short, Pakistan has the potential either to be crippled by the Taliban or to serve as a bulwark against everything the Taliban represents. That is why the Obama administration and many of us in Congress see the need for a bold new strategy for Pakistan. The status quo has not brought success, the stakes could not be higher, and we have little choice but to think differently--in fact, to think bigger-- about what these challenges are. The Enhanced Partnership With Pakistan Act is the centerpiece of this new approach, which is why President Obama has called on Congress to pass it. An earlier version of this bill was reported out of the Foreign Relations Committee in July with overwhelming bipartisan support. This version builds upon its predecessor in a number of important ways. First, this new legislation directs $100 million toward an urgent need: police reform and equipping. Second, it mandates strict accountability from the administration as to every dollar that is spent, using benchmarks and metrics to measure and adapt our performance. Third, in light of the acute security challenge on the ground today, this bill gives our Ambassador the flexibility needed to respond to events as they unfold. We believe this bill is urgently needed. For decades, the United States has sought the cooperation of Pakistani decisionmakers through military aid--almost exclusively military aid--while paying scant attention to the wishes and urgent needs of the population itself. This arrangement is, frankly, rapidly disintegrating. We believe we are paying too much for one thing and getting too little for a broad number of things we really need. When I say ``we,'' I really emphasize the Pakistani people's needs. The desires and aspirations of the Pakistani people have never been adequately focused on or attended to sufficiently in these policies. Most Pakistanis understand that they have been, frankly, left out of the policy in broad terms. As a result, an alarming percentage of the Pakistani population now sees America as a greater threat than al-Qaida. Until we change that perception, there is, frankly, very little chance of ending tolerance for terrorist groups or persuading any Pakistani Government to devote the political capital necessary to deny such groups and to deny them the sanctuary they have been able to receive, particularly in the western part of the country, as well as to deny them the covert material support which they have also been able to get from a number of different sources. The dangers of inaction are rising almost every day. So when people measure this legislation, that is really what they have to consider. What happens if you do nothing? Well, if you do nothing, it is clear that the march of terror that is taking hold in a number of different places clearly threatens nuclear weapons that might then potentially fall into hands that are completely unpredictable. In fact, to whatever degree they might be predictable, one can only see danger in that kind of eventuality. The dangers of inaction are real. Almost any scenario played out plays against the broader interests of the Pakistani people and of the democratic Government which struggles today to provide services and to govern them. In the month since President Obama called on Congress to pass the bill we are now introducing, the situation on the ground in Pakistan has deteriorated significantly. The Government struck what many of us believed and said at the time was an ill-advised deal that effectively surrendered the Swat Valley to the Taliban. The deal, predictably--as many of us said--emboldened the Taliban to deploy the same brutal tactics they had used in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and to use their base in Swat to then extend their reach ever closer to the country's heartland. I emphasize--I know Senator Lugar will join me in emphasizing this-- ultimately, it is not the United States or the policy of the United States that is going to decide what happens in Pakistan. Ultimately, it will be Pakistanis, not Americans, who must determine their nation's future. But we can change the nature of our relationship and we can empower those Pakistanis who are fighting to steer the world's second largest Muslim country onto a path of moderation and stability and regional cooperation. That is the foundation of the bill Senator Lugar and I are introducing. Frankly, I have seen firsthand how this approach works. Following the 2005 Kashmir earthquake, the United States spent nearly $1 billion on relief efforts. Having visited places, as I did then, such as Mansehra and Muzaffarabad in the earthquake's aftermath, I can personally attest to the awesome power of the operation we launched. I will never forget flying up in a helicopter to the northwest part of Pakistan, not far from the big Himalayas, where one could see off in the distance, and landing in a small spot by the river and meeting kids in a tent city because this was the first time those kids had ever come out of the mountains and, in fact, the first time any of those kids had ever gone to school. It was extraordinary to see the sight of American service men and women saving the lives of Pakistani citizens. Frankly, it was invaluable in changing the perceptions of America in Pakistan. At that period of time, while we provided that assistance and while we were visibly involved in saving lives, not in taking them, the fact is that the reputation of the United States in the country as it was measured by polls at the time markedly increased, very dramatically increased. In the wake of that natural disaster, we weren't the only ones to recognize the need for public diplomacy based in deeds rather than in words. The front group for the terrorist organization Lashkar-e Taiba set up a string of professional relief camps throughout the region trying to mimic what we were doing. But our effort was far more effective, and the permanent gift of the U.S. Army's last mobile Army surgical hospital, or MASH, had a profound impact on the perceptions of people in the region. For a brief period, America was going toe-to-toe with extremists in a true battle of hearts and minds, and we were winning. It is up to us to recreate this kind of success on a broader scale, without waiting for a natural or even a manmade disaster. The question is, How can we most effectively demonstrate the true friendship of the American people for the Pakistani people? We believe this bill is an important first step. It is a prime example of what we call ``smart power'' because it uses both economic and military aid to achieve an overall effect that is greater than the sum of its parts. On the economic side, this bill triples nonmilitary aid to $1.5 billion annually for 5 years and urges an additional 5 years of funding. These funds will be used to build schools, roads, and clinics. In other words, they aim to do on a regular basis what we briefly achieved with our earthquake relief and what the Pakistani Government, because of the economic crisis as well as political crisis in the country, has been unable to do to date. But this money will do a great deal more than just good deeds. It will empower the fledgling civilian Government to show that it can deliver the citizens of Pakistan a better life. It will empower the moderates, who will have something concrete to put forward as evidence that friendship with America actually brings rewards, not just perils, and it will empower the vast majority of Pakistanis who reject the terrifying vision of al- Qaida and Taliban but who have been angered and frustrated by the perception that their own leaders and America's leaders don't care about their daily struggle. To do this right, we must make a long-term commitment. Most Pakistanis think that America has used and abandoned their country in the past, most notably after the jihad against the Soviets in Afghanistan. They fear we will just desert them again the moment the threat from al-Qaida subsides. It is this history and this fear that cause Pakistan to hedge its bets. If we ever expect Pakistan to break decisively with the Taliban and other extremist groups, then we need to provide firm assurance that we are not just foul-weather friends. By authorizing funds through 2013, and hopefully longer, this bill offers the chance to clearly state America's longer term concerns and interests. On the security side, the bill places conditions on military aid that will ensure the money is used for the intended purposes, which was not the case over the last 8 years. In order for Pakistan to receive any military assistance, it will need to meet an annual certification that its army and spy services are genuine partners in this endeavor. In the struggle against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups, including Lashkar-e Taiba--as we all know, Lashkar-e Taiba was the perpetrator of the Mumbai massacre of last November. We also will need a certification of their partnership in the battle against the Taliban and its affiliates who threaten our troops in Afghanistan from their sanctuaries in the Pakistani tribal areas, as well as in the effort to solidify democratic governance and the rule of law in Pakistan. We believe these conditions are eminently reasonable, and they should be easy to meet for any nation receiving American aid. As important as the economic and military components of the bill are is the question of how they fit together. Making this unequivocal commitment to the Pakistani people enables us to calibrate our military assistance more effectively. In any given year, we may choose to increase it or decrease it or to simply leave its level unchanged, but we will have the flexibility which we haven't had in prior years. For too long, the Pakistani military frankly believed we were bluffing when we threatened to cut funding for a particular weapons system or an expensive piece of hardware because that was the only game, if you will. It was the only money on the table. This bill will change that. Up to now, frankly, they were right about the unwillingness of the United States to take alternative routes. But if our economic aid becomes the centerpiece of our aid policy and it is tripled to $1.5 billion, then we can actually guarantee that we pay more attention to how the military assistance is being spent and what is occurring. We will finally be able to make the choice of expenditure on the basis of both of our natural security interests rather than simply the institutional interests of the security forces in Pakistan. Let me be clear on the issue of military aid. The bill does not take any position on the level of such assistance deliberately. It is possible to envision a significant increase in military aid, just as easily as one could envision a decrease. The Pakistani army needs more helicopters. It needs more night-vision capability, more training and counterinsurgency techniques. So instead of locking in a figure for future years, what this bill does is provide us the ability to target our military aid directly to the areas that best serve both of our national security interests, which are fighting terrorism, fighting the insurgency, and keeping the people of Pakistan safe from the most dire threats. Moreover, this bill allows us to fine-tune our approach in response to the level of will and competence displayed by Pakistan's military: When we see the genuine commitment, then we can help increase capabilities, and if we see at any time that commitment is lacking, we have the ability to adjust and redirect assistance rather than permit it to be wasted. We have spent some $10 billion in military aid and compensation over the past 8 years. Still, the militants got within 60 miles of the capital recently and al-Qaida continues to enjoy a sanctuary. So it is long past time we figure out how to work more effectively with the Pakistanis and the Pakistan Government on a more effective approach. That is what we hope this achieves. This bill is not a short-term fix. It aims for the medium term and especially the long term. It won't drive the Taliban out of Swat Valley next week or next month. Its aim is, once the Taliban is driven from Swat and from Bajaur and from Dir, to help keep them out. To put it in terms of basic counterinsurgency doctrine made familiar by General Petraeus, the Pakistani military is already able to handle the ``clear'' phase of the struggle. The United States will now be assisting this mission through other vehicles. But the bill Senator Lugar and I are introducing will provide vital help for the ``hold'' and the ``build'' parts of the mission. Nor is this bill intended to be a silver bullet. It provides powerful tools, but these tools are only as effective as the policymakers who wield them. I am confident President Obama and his team will use wisely whatever policy tools are at their disposal. We need to approach this endeavor with a large dose of humility. The truth is that our leverage is limited. This bill aims to increase that leverage significantly. But we need to be realistic about what we can accomplish. Americans can influence events in Pakistan, but we cannot and we should not decide them. Ultimately, the decisionmakers are the people and the leaders of Pakistan. Ask any resident of Lahore, Karachi, or Peshawar what these places used to be like and you will hear a long statement of the reveries of the time that now seems a world away. We need to help Pakistan once again become a nation of stability, security, and prosperity, enjoying peace at home and abroad--a nation, in short, that older Pakistanis remember from their childhoods. It is this nation that most Pakistanis desperately wish to reclaim. The bill that Senator Lugar and I now introduce will help America ensure that Pakistanis have the resources necessary to choose a peaceful, stable future. It offers them a helping hand in getting there. I urge our colleagues to join us in supporting this bill.