John Kerry

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.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today along with Senator Graham, I am introducing the Medal of Honor Commemorative Coin Act of 2009 to assist the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation in raising the funds it needs to promote the qualities which the Medal of Honor embodies-- courage, sacrifice, selfless service, and patriotism. The Medal of Honor was first authorized by Congress in 1861 and represents our Nation's highest award for valor in action against an enemy force. The medal symbolizes the value we, as a Nation, place on the power of one individual to make a difference in extraordinary circumstances through selfless actions of bravery. Although the Medal of Honor was created for the Civil War, Congress made it a permanent decoration in 1863. Since then, fewer than 3,500 Medals of Honor have been awarded to members of the U.S. Armed Forces--approximately half during the Civil War. Today, there are only 111 living recipients. These select few exemplify the values of our great nation through their incredible acts of bravery and commitment to our country. The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation was formed in 1999. This 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization promotes heroism and selflessness among our Nation's youth by perpetuating the Medal of Honor's legacy through increased awareness, education, scholarships, behavior, and example. The commemorative coins will be legal tender, emblematic of the spirit of the Medal of Honor, giving the holder a physical reminder of the American tradition of selfless service and sacrifice. These coins will be minted for the year 2011, marking the 150th anniversary of the Medal of Honor's initial authorization by Congress. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers not only serve their country selflessly but do so in an exemplary manner. In this time of war and sacrifice it is of utmost importance that we show the people fighting for their country how much we value their service. This is the medal won by Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith. Under attack at the Baghdad International Airport, Sergeant Smith quickly organized the defense on the ground to engage a company-sized enemy force. He showed no concern for his own personal safety when he mounted a personnel carrier and manned a .50 caliber machine gun while under fire from the enemy and was mortally wounded in doing so. His valor lead to the defeat of the enemy and saved the lives of numerous injured members of his platoon. This is the medal won by Captain Humbert Roque Versace. During an intense attack by the Viet Cong in the Xuyen Providence Captain Versace was wounded while engaging the enemy. Although he fought against capture through injury and hostility he was taken prisoner. While incarcerated Captain Versace exemplified the Code of Conduct as a prisoner of war, attempted to escape three times and never gave in to the brutal interrogations all while maintaining command over his fellow American soldiers that were also imprisoned setting an extraordinary example. This is the medal won by Marine Corps Second Lieutenant Robert Dale Reem, who on the night of November 6, 1950, after leading three separate assaults on an enemy position in the vicinity of Chinhung-ni, Korea, threw himself on top of an enemy grenade that landed amidst his men. Since 1863 this country has been honoring its greatest heroes by decorating them with the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is an elite group of men and women who make us proud everyday of the U.S. Armed Forces and the protection they afford us. We should show our thanks in the best manner possible. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today along with Senator Graham, I am introducing the Medal of Honor Commemorative Coin Act of 2009 to assist the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation in raising the funds it needs to promote the qualities which the Medal of Honor embodies-- courage, sacrifice, selfless service, and patriotism. The Medal of Honor was first authorized by Congress in 1861 and represents our Nation's highest award for valor in action against an enemy force. The medal symbolizes the value we, as a Nation, place on the power of one individual to make a difference in extraordinary circumstances through selfless actions of bravery. Although the Medal of Honor was created for the Civil War, Congress made it a permanent decoration in 1863. Since then, fewer than 3,500 Medals of Honor have been awarded to members of the U.S. Armed Forces--approximately half during the Civil War. Today, there are only 111 living recipients. These select few exemplify the values of our great nation through their incredible acts of bravery and commitment to our country. The Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation was formed in 1999. This 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization promotes heroism and selflessness among our Nation's youth by perpetuating the Medal of Honor's legacy through increased awareness, education, scholarships, behavior, and example. The commemorative coins will be legal tender, emblematic of the spirit of the Medal of Honor, giving the holder a physical reminder of the American tradition of selfless service and sacrifice. These coins will be minted for the year 2011, marking the 150th anniversary of the Medal of Honor's initial authorization by Congress. Today, in Iraq and Afghanistan, American soldiers not only serve their country selflessly but do so in an exemplary manner. In this time of war and sacrifice it is of utmost importance that we show the people fighting for their country how much we value their service. This is the medal won by Sergeant First Class Paul R. Smith. Under attack at the Baghdad International Airport, Sergeant Smith quickly organized the defense on the ground to engage a company-sized enemy force. He showed no concern for his own personal safety when he mounted a personnel carrier and manned a .50 caliber machine gun while under fire from the enemy and was mortally wounded in doing so. His valor lead to the defeat of the enemy and saved the lives of numerous injured members of his platoon. This is the medal won by Captain Humbert Roque Versace. During an intense attack by the Viet Cong in the Xuyen Providence Captain Versace was wounded while engaging the enemy. Although he fought against capture through injury and hostility he was taken prisoner. While incarcerated Captain Versace exemplified the Code of Conduct as a prisoner of war, attempted to escape three times and never gave in to the brutal interrogations all while maintaining command over his fellow American soldiers that were also imprisoned setting an extraordinary example. This is the medal won by Marine Corps Second Lieutenant Robert Dale Reem, who on the night of November 6, 1950, after leading three separate assaults on an enemy position in the vicinity of Chinhung-ni, Korea, threw himself on top of an enemy grenade that landed amidst his men. Since 1863 this country has been honoring its greatest heroes by decorating them with the Congressional Medal of Honor. This is an elite group of men and women who make us proud everyday of the U.S. Armed Forces and the protection they afford us. We should show our thanks in the best manner possible. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, next week is National Crime Victims' Rights Week when our country honors the heroism of crime victims and shows our gratitude to advocates who work to protect those who have been victimized. I am proud to say that as part of this commemoration Attorney General Eric Holder will be honoring the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center, BARCC. I would like to add my congratulations and sincerest thanks for the important work that is done at BARCC. BARCC has been helping victims of rape and sexual assault in Boston since 1973, making it one of the first such centers of its kind. Highly trained counselors and advocates team with volunteers from the area to create a nurturing, and supportive, environment for these victims. Through their hard work and selfless dedication, they serve over 4,000 victims a year providing critical services to the people of Boston. Additionally, they participate in statewide and national training in best practices and education sharing their knowledge and experiences. BARCC is also committed to preventing future victims by doing outreach in the community on sexual assault awareness, particularly on the many college and university campuses in Boston. Their comprehensive expertise in violence prevention, victims' rights, and victims support is what makes BARCC such an exceptional facility. I join Attorney General Holder, the people of Boston, and Janet Yassen, director of the Victims of Violence Program, Cambridge Health Alliance, who nominated BARCC for this honor, in expressing our gratitude to the staff and volunteers at BARCC for the incredible service they provide.

Mr. KERRY

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

Mr. KERRY. I ask my colleague, if he has a moment, to see whether we can set a time for the vote with respect to this issue.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and thank my colleague. I yield the floor, according to the unanimous consent.

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

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator have a sense of when we could try to come to some arrangement? A lot of Senators on both sides of the aisle are trying to arrange schedules, and the majority leader is trying to deal with the question of the legislative schedule. If we can get a sense of that--I know the Senator is trying to get at it. I think if we could pin this down, that would be helpful. If he could give me a sense of how many Senators, when, and if we will lock in their times and then lock in a vote.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say that every one of us shares the outrage at the type of government and the way in which the people of North Korea are oppressed. I commend the Senator from Kansas for calling the country's attention and the world's attention and the Senate's at this moment to it. We will have a hearing on May 6. It will be a comprehensive hearing on North Korea. It will involve all of the issues with respect to North Korea. We welcome that. That is an appropriate role for us. But it is also appropriate for us to try to get this nominee a time certain. He would like to leave for Iraq tomorrow. So we wish, if we can, to have a sense of the timing on the vote. If we can get an agreement here, maybe I could--how many Senators are planning to speak on the Senator's side of the aisle?

Mr. KERRY. I understood that Senator McCain was going to try to speak at 3:30, which is about 35 minutes from now. We are prepared not to have any further speakers on our side. I will propound a request. I ask unanimous consent that we allow the Senator from Kansas to control the time, but for, say, 10 minutes between now and the hour of 5 o'clock, and that the vote be at 5 o'clock. I ask for an order to that effect.

Mr. KERRY. I respect that, but I also know how the Senate works; I have 26 years here. I will come back. I have a meeting going on now, but I will be back in about 20 minutes. I hope we can find Senator Kyl between now and then, pin down the time for him, and get an agreement. I think it is important for the Senate to get its business done. Is that agreeable to the Senator from Kansas?

Mr. KERRY. If we cannot contact a member of the Senate who is in the leadership--surely we can find one of the leaders of the Senate in 20 minutes.

Mr. KERRY. I will be back at a quarter after, and I hope we can propound an agreement at that time. I thank the Senator for the interruption.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from New Jersey for a very precise and important set of arguments about why we ought to proceed forward, and I appreciate his taking time to come to the Senate floor to do that. Momentarily, it is my hope we will be able to propound a unanimous consent agreement. We are just waiting, I hope, for the word to come back from Senator Kyl shortly. I hope that can come very quickly so there could be a vote around 5:15 on this nomination. Let me just say a couple of words about a few of the things that have been said. Obviously, we hope to be able to divide up the remaining time between us and then conclude the debate, but part of what the Senator from Kansas has said, both this morning and this afternoon, is that the human rights envoy, then Jay Lefkowitz of the State Department, was not invited to take part in the six-party talks per an exchange that Senator Brownback had with Chris Hill--with Ambassador Hill--before the Armed Services Committee. Ambassador Hill has addressed this issue, I have addressed this issue on a number of occasions, and we have really laid this out. The full text of his remarks has been submitted for the Record. In a nutshell, let me just state one last time for the record exactly what happened. As Ambassador Hill made clear at the time, his promise to Senator Brownback applied to the future negotiating sessions, except those specifically dealing with nuclear disarmament where the Human Rights Assistant Secretary had no portfolio whatsoever. To make it clear, the Senator from Kansas somehow believes that no matter what, Special Envoy Lefkowitz should have been invited to that, but that was not a decision that was up to Ambassador Hill. Let's be clear about this. That was not Ambassador Hill's decision to make. The New York Times on January of 2008 reported that the decision about who would attend the six-party talks and what issues would be discussed was made by Secretary Rice and the President. Here are the words of Secretary Rice speaking about Human Rights Envoy Jay Lefkowitz as quoted by the New York Times on January 23, 2008. ``He,'' Lefkowitz, ``doesn't work on the six-party talks.'' This is Secretary of State Rice talking, rebuking her own Assistant Secretary. He doesn't work on the six-party talks. He doesn't know what's going on in the six-party talks and he certainly has no say in what American policy will be in the six-party talks. That is exactly what Secretary Rice said. So the Senator may have a quarrel but it is not with Ambassador Hill. Secretary Rice was very explicit in that rebuke. Quoting Secretary Rice, again from the New York Times, this is what she said: I know where the President stands, and I know where I stand, and those are the people who speak for American policy. That is the level of the rebuke you are talking about here. It is almost unprecedented, frankly. And here the Senator is, trying to carry water for this rebuked Assistant Secretary who was inappropriately asserting himself at that time. But regardless of whether you think he should have been there or should not have been there, it was not Ambassador Hill's decision to make. He took daily instructions from the President and from the Secretary of State, from the State Department. That is what a good diplomat and negotiator at important talks like that does and that is exactly what he did. I ask unanimous consent the full text of the article in the New York Times be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY. The second thing alleged here is somehow Ambassador Hill failed to implement the North Korean Human Rights Act. That is not accurate. Facts are facts. Facts, as has been said many times, are stubborn things. Consistent with the Human Rights Act, Ambassador Hill secured the admission of the first North Korean refugees into the United States in 2006. He worked to ensure the safe passage to South Korea of asylum seekers from the North who had been detained in other east Asian countries. He backed increased funding of radio broadcasting by Radio Free Asia. During Ambassador Hill's tenure as Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, the State Department approved the expenditure of $2 million of our taxpayer funds to sponsor the Seoul Summit on North Korean Human Rights in South Korea, in December of 2005. Ambassador Hill met regularly with North Korean refugees and defectors who made it out of North Korea. The record simply doesn't substantiate the notion that Chris Hill was inattentive to human rights. In the morning debate, the Senator from Kansas showed a dramatic picture of starving North Korean children. Noting that today is Holocaust Remembrance Day, Senator Brownback said we should not be indifferent to the suffering of North Korean people and we must not consider human rights inside North Korea to be a low priority. We all agree with the Senator. Of course we should not allow it to be a low priority. He noted that unnamed ``U.S. diplomats'' had opposed decisive action to bomb the rail lines leading to Auschwitz during World War II and said the current situation with north Korea is ``eerily familiar.'' All of us should listen carefully to what the Senator has said about North Korea and its oppression. None of us should forget the lessons of the Holocaust. We have an obligation to respond to great humanitarian crises, whether they are caused by nature or by man. But to show a picture of starving North Korean children in the debate on Ambassador Hill's qualifications and to imply somehow that he is indifferent to their plight does a good public servant an enormous disservice--particularly one whose record is what I have described, who time and again has fought for the implementation of the Human Rights Act and who has taken personal risks on occasion to enforce human rights. The date of the photograph that was there was not in fact declared, but I believe it was during the great Republic of North Korea's famine in 1996 and 1997. If that is true, that is 10 years before Ambassador Chris Hill began his duties as the lead envoy in the six-party talks. So, again, to create some sense of linkage or nexus here is inappropriate. In any case, the bottom line is this. No one is going to deny that North Korea is a country on the brink of famine and failure. It is a failed place. None of us should be idle in the face of this basic threat to the health of the North Korean people and to the security of the peninsula and of the region. It is deplorable that North Korea has recently expelled food aid workers. I hope they are going to reverse that decision. We are going to listen carefully to testimony before our committee on May 6. We will have a comprehensive view on what is happening in North Korea and what the possibilities are for our policy. But let me emphasize: Chris Hill never ignored that situation. He worked with skill and persistence to secure direct access for five U.S. NGOs, including Christian groups, to provide aid to millions of North Koreans, including hungry children exactly like the kids who were depicted in the photograph on the floor this morning. Thanks to the work of Ambassador Hill, Korean-speaking U.S. aid workers in 2008-2009 were able to travel to remote parts of North Korea never before reached by U.S. aid workers. That is an extraordinary success for which Ambassador Hill ought to be congratulated. They were able to establish five field offices in rural areas where they had never been before. That is a success. They were able to conduct unannounced visits to schools, hospitals, and orphanages. That is an accountability we never had before. That is a success. They were able to provide 100,000 tons of food aid to help people feed literally millions of North Korean children. That is a success. This was the first U.S. food aid to North Korea delivered by U.S. NGOs since the year 2000 and this was delivered in the most intrusive, comprehensive monitoring system ever permitted by North Korea. Ambassador Hill deserves praise for his efforts on this issue, not the criticism that was implied on the floor of the Senate. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 5:15 p.m. today all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination of Christopher Hill to be Ambassador to Iraq, that the time until then be equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Brownback or designees of each of us, and that the 10 minutes immediately prior to the vote be equally divided and controlled between myself and Senator Brownback; further, that the time controlled by the Republicans, of that time, Senator Kyl control 15 minutes, Senator McCain control 20 minutes, and that upon confirmation, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and the Senate then resume legislative session.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, we have given Senators now a chance to air these grievances and raise questions and engage in a pretty full debate on the nomination of Chris Hill. I appreciate the issues my colleague has raised. I know he is deeply concerned about these, and has been one of the leaders in the Senate on the subject of human rights. We all respect that and we are determined in the course of our hearings and in the course of the work of the committee to keep that issue front and center, not just with respect to North Korea but with every country where those issues exist. I do think it is unfair to suggest that Ambassador Chris Hill has done anything less than meet the standards we would expect with respect to his stewardship, both with the six-party talks as well as in the rest of his career, and I have talked about that a great deal. We have heard the arguments and now is the time to vote. We need an ambassador in Iraq. We need this ambassador in Iraq. This should not be a controversial nomination. Ambassador Hill is a proven expert negotiator. He is a problem solver and one of the best diplomats we have in the corps. As has been discussed, he has a great deal of experience with the skills that matter the most for the resolution of the remaining issues in Iraq, and he has been particularly involved in ethnic and sectarian conflicts not unlike those he will face when he gets over there. He has worked on multiparty international negotiations, and he is going to have to bring every skill he has learned in the fullness of his career to this task. Particularly, I want to say we join Senator Brownback in expressing the full concern of every Member of the Senate that we give meaning to the words ``never again.'' That is a solemn responsibility. It is a solemn responsibility particularly on this Holocaust Remembrance Day. But it is also clear from the record, from Secretary Rice's own words, that the decision to leave the Special Envoy for Human Rights out of these negotiations was not made by Chris Hill and we should not, in our votes today, hold that decision of his superiors against Chris Hill. It was a decision which Secretary Rice has spoken to publicly and I think we have addressed the major concern that was raised by the Senator from Kansas. We have also shown the fullness of Chris Hill's own record on human rights and I think that record speaks for itself.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the Chair and look forward to this vote. I hope it will be an overwhelming vote in favor of our ambassador to Iraq.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, Fenway Park, America's most beloved ballpark, will play host to a different collection of superstars on April 30: the young people from cities across Massachusetts including Boston, Brockton, Lawrence, Springfield and Worcester, whose achievements are not measured in batting average or RBIs or All Star Game selections; but in SAT scores, GPA and college acceptance letters. These young people measure their success by the number of lives they change, the number of young people they help get into college, and the dreams they help make real for hundreds of Massachusetts high school students each year. Tonight at Fenway Park, you will not find Josh Beckett or Dustin Pedroia or Kevin Youkilis. But you will find Pat Johnson and tonight, to the people at Fenway, he is every bit the superstar David Ortiz is. Patrick is the incoming Boston College Site Director for Let's Get Ready or LGR, an organization relying wholly on the generosity, compassion and selflessness of college students that guides low-income high school students through the dizzying and daunting college admissions process. He is joined at Fenway tonight by LGR's other volunteers and supporters and by the students and families they work so hard to help. The college students who volunteer with LGR serve as coaches. These college coaches provide SAT preparation and assistance with all aspects of the college application process to underserved students in five Massachusetts communities. The college application process has become a multimillion-dollar industry and too often low-income students find themselves at a disadvantage. They can not afford the private SAT tutors or professional personal essay advisers more affluent high school students take advantage of. Commercial prep courses cost anywhere from $1,200 to $5,000; LGR has a direct cost of only $500 per student. That $500 goes a very long way. LGR helps to level the playing field and ensure the remarkable opportunities that can come from a college education are not reserved for the well-to-do or well-connected. And level the playing field is exactly what the LGR coaches do. Ninety-two percent of LGR students go directly to college after high school, compared to 47 percent of low-income students nationally. LGR students increase their SAT scores an average of 110 points. LGR has provided support to over 7,500 high school students and engaged over 3,500 college students in meaningful service learning experiences. I commend Pat and all the superstar LGR coaches at Fenway Park tonight and I thank them for their efforts to ensure no hardworking student with a dream of a college education is left on the sidelines.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 with Senator Specter. This bill is designed to ensure that those with limited or no vision are able to identify electric and hybrid vehicles as they travel down the road. I am a strong supporter of increasing the number of electric and hybrid electric vehicles on our roads because they will limit our dependence on foreign oil and help limit pollution. However, the silent operation of hybrid vehicles has created a potentially hazardous situation for some pedestrians with limited or no vision. Too often, vision impaired individuals are unable to hear hybrid cars as they pass by them. This makes it more difficult for them to get around. While I am thankful that there will be less noise on the street, we should be fair to those among us who use senses other than sight to navigate the streets. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting vision impaired pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. This bill requires that solutions to this problem are studied and the best of these solutions is implemented in a timely manner. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am introducing the Pedestrian Safety Enhancement Act of 2009 with Senator Specter. This bill is designed to ensure that those with limited or no vision are able to identify electric and hybrid vehicles as they travel down the road. I am a strong supporter of increasing the number of electric and hybrid electric vehicles on our roads because they will limit our dependence on foreign oil and help limit pollution. However, the silent operation of hybrid vehicles has created a potentially hazardous situation for some pedestrians with limited or no vision. Too often, vision impaired individuals are unable to hear hybrid cars as they pass by them. This makes it more difficult for them to get around. While I am thankful that there will be less noise on the street, we should be fair to those among us who use senses other than sight to navigate the streets. The bill directs the Secretary of Transportation to study and establish a motor vehicle safety standard that provides for a means of alerting vision impaired pedestrians of motor vehicle operation. This bill requires that solutions to this problem are studied and the best of these solutions is implemented in a timely manner. I ask all my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Andrew Keller, who is detailed to the Foreign Relations Committee from the State Department, be granted privileges of the floor for the duration of the debate on the Christopher Hill nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Indiana, the distinguished ranking member of the Foreign Relations Committee.

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