John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just reiterate--I think Senator Barrasso is here and Senator Lee, and others; Senator Kyl is also here--we look forward to working over the course of the next few hours with our colleagues to try to come to some understanding of the amendments here. One of the things that we promised--and Senator Reid has altered his approach to this in order to try to accommodate our colleagues--is to make certain we are not closing people out and there is no effort to try to limit the debate. I do think, by virtue of the work done in committee and otherwise, there is a limit to where we need to go in terms of amendments. So I am perfectly happy--together with Senator Lugar--to work with our colleagues with respect to a reservation or an understanding or a declaration that they believe needs to be tweaked. We will see what we can do with respect to the number of amendments we want to bring. Let me just say to my colleagues that this treaty should not be controversial. Senator Robert Dole, President George H.W. Bush, former Republican Attorney General Richard Thornburg, and current colleagues Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others have all supported and believe we ought to move forward with this treaty in a bipartisan manner. I would say to my colleagues that in the wake of the election, this is the first legislative effort we are making on the floor of the Senate. It would be my hope that we could reflect that we heard the American people, who asked us to do their business and to not fall into the pattern of partisan divide, of gridlock that has so characterized the Senate over the course of the last few years. This is our opportunity to prove that the exceptionalism we are all proud to talk about with respect to our country is defined by our doing exceptional work. This is an opportunity to do that. We have an opportunity to rise with common purpose and make a difference, not just here in the United States, frankly, but most predominately make a difference in the rest of the world as to how people with disabilities are treated. I believe the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities is an opportunity for us to embrace the truth in legislating and to separate ourselves from ideological and/or partisan efforts to distort that truth or to prevent, actually, an alternative reality, which is what happens in some cases. Our colleagues, I am told, want to approach this in good faith. We welcome that. We look forward to sitting down with them, working through what amendments we think we should vote on, and perhaps we can even work together to tweak one of the understandings or declarations in an appropriate way. We would like to make progress. I believe we can get this done. It will be a good moment for the Senate when we do. I know we have not always agreed on all the issues and certainly not even with respect to this treaty. What I ask of my colleagues is this: Those who oppose this or who are inclined to oppose it, I would say step back and take a look at this treaty and measure the report language, the report the committee put out, and measure the transmittal letter of the President of the United States and the Secretary of State, and what they have said to the Senate is really at stake in this treaty. I ask my colleagues before they come to the floor to carefully check the factual foundation of this treaty because we have continually heard some outside groups characterizing it in ways that simply do not meet the facts, that do not withstand scrutiny when measured against the law of the United States or international law or the law of the States. This treaty does not require any change whatsoever to American law. None. Zero. There is no impact on American law. There is no ability in this treaty for anybody to gain some new right here in the United States. No individual, American or foreign, gains any access to the courts in an effort to litigate some component of this treaty because the treaty specifically denies people any access to the courts. It is what is called--it is not self-executing. As a consequence of not being self-executing, it gives no right to any litigation. So the obvious question from somebody might be, well, why do we want to do it then? What is the benefit to us? The benefit is very significant in terms of our diplomacy, in terms of the rights of Americans when they travel abroad, Americans with disabilities. Now, our bottom line--I think our shared bottom line--Senator Lugar, Senator McCain, Senator Barrasso, Senator Moran, and others who support this treaty believe this will extend the protections to millions of disabled Americans when they leave our shores. I thank Majority Leader Reid for being willing to bring this treaty to the floor at this moment in time when there is obviously a lot on Senators' minds, a lot of business before the Senate. But I believe this treaty will be deemed to have the requisite votes ultimately to show that this is, in fact, in the best interests of our country. This treaty has been described as a modest treaty, but the impact of Senate ratification is actually far from modest. The impact will echo around the world. Why? Because the United States of America is the world's gold standard with respect to the treatment of people with disabilities. This has been a long journey for us in the United States. We have gone through many different steps leading ultimately to the Americans with Disabilities Act, of which we celebrated the 20th anniversary. Our own colleague, Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa, was the leader on that landmark piece of legislation, together with my former colleague Senator Ted Kennedy. They moved this country forward in great steps so that we welcomed people with disabilities into mainstream America. The impact of this treaty is to take that gold standard and extend it to countries that have never heard of disability rights or that have never changed their laws to accommodate people with disabilities. This will have a profound impact. Most significantly, it will have a profound impact on those who have served our country, those 5.5 million disabled American veterans who may want to travel abroad, work abroad, go to another country to study, who will as a result of this gain lifestyle benefits and accommodations they otherwise might never have. Now, 125 nations have already signed this treaty and are living by it. We have not. We were the principal architect. Our laws are the model. But once again the United States has been holding back while other countries fill the vacuum we have left behind. I wish to share with my colleagues a statement by Senator Bob Dole, who was as deeply committed to this cause as Senator Ted Kennedy, and he was committed to the original Americans with Disabilities Act. Senator Dole today, as we know, is in Bethesda Hospital. I do not know if he is listening at this time. I met with him not so many months ago. We talked about this and other issues. He is a great patriot. He was a great leader here in the Senate. I think his words ought to be listened to by our colleagues. Here is what he says: It was an exceptional group that I joined during World War II, which no one joins by personal choice. It is a group that neither respects nor discriminates by age, sex, wealth, education, skin color, religious beliefs, political party, power or prestige. That group, Americans with disabilities, has grown in size ever since. So, therefore, has the importance of maintaining access for people with disabilities to mainstream American life, whether it's access to a job, or education, or registering to vote. Senator Dole went on to say: U.S. ratification of the [Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities] will improve physical, technological and communication access outside the U.S., thereby helping to ensure that Americans--particularly, many thousands of disabled American veterans--have equal opportunities to live, work, and travel abroad. In testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee this year, Special Adviser for International Disability Rights at the State Department Judith Heumann recounted in personal and searing terms why this issue is so important. She drew from the experience of her own life. . . . As a child, I did not have the benefit of accessible communities, inclusive schools, or accessible transportation. Without even simple curb cuts, I wheeled in the streets amongst oncoming traffic. I could not ride our buses and trains. I was not allowed to go to school until I was 9 years old, and then received poor quality education, segregated from the rest of my peers. When I applied for my first job as a teacher, I was initially denied my certification simply because I could not walk. Today she is advocating on behalf of the State Department for this treaty. She summed up her interests in this compelling way. She said: U.S. citizens with disabilities frequently face barriers when they travel, conduct business, study, serve, reside or retire overseas. With our extensive domestic experience in promoting equality and inclusion of persons with disabilities, the United States is uniquely positioned to help interested countries understand how to effectively comply with their obligations under the Convention . . . However, the fact that we have yet to ratify the Disabilities Convention is frequently raised by foreign officials, and deflects from what should be center stage: how their own record of promoting disability rights could be improved. She goes on to say: Though I take great pride in the U.S. record, it is frankly difficult to make best use of the `bully pulpit' to challenge disabilities rights violations on behalf of Americans with disabilities and others when we have not ratified the Convention. America's history--all of its history--has been marked by the long struggle for equality. It is a struggle that ought to inspire all of us to fight on behalf of many others whose voices too often are ignored or forgotten. Maybe the movie about Lincoln today would really rekindle in a lot of Americans that best sense of what is worth fighting for and what is worth achieving in public life. For me, that vision of fighting for those people whose views are ignored or forgotten means having and holding on to a vision of a society that really works for the common good, where individual rights and freedoms are connected to our responsibilities to each other. All Americans have an inherent right to be treated as equal citizens of our Nation. But the historic march toward a better, fairer America can only come about if we are willing to make those less fortunate than ourselves the focus of our work. And this is a march that goes on for all of us, and it must go on because without it nothing changes. One thing is clear: The disabilities convention is not an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats--Senator Lugar is here, Senator McCain, and others--nor is it an issue that should divide us along any partisan lines. The Foreign Relations Committee approved this treaty in a strong bipartisan vote on July 26, and that marked the 22nd anniversary of the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act. I am grateful to the majority leader, former Majority Leader Dole, and to President George Herbert Walker Bush, who joined a bipartisan group of Senators, whose names I have listed, in advocating for this important cause. I think our former colleague Senator Kennedy would be very proud if he could see us coming together today in support of a convention just as we did two decades ago with the ADA. This treaty is personal to many Members here, to Senator Durbin, to Senator Harkin, to Senator Lugar, and others. Members from both sides of the aisle have worked hard to bring us to the floor today. I believe the questions have been answered. I think the report and the Record could not be more clear. The only question that remains is whether we are going to be remembered for approving the Disabilities Convention and reconnecting with our best traditions or finding an excuse to delay and defy our core responsibility as Senators. I have received countless letters and heard from nearly 300 organizations on this issue. There is a long list--and I am not going to read all through those 300--every single major military organization supports this treaty; the Air Force Sergeants Association, the Air Force Women Officers Association, the American GI Forum, the Blinded Veterans Association, the Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children Disabled American Veterans, the Military Officers Association of America, the National Guard Association of the United States, the National Military Family Association, Paralyzed Veterans of America, and then a long list, Veterans for Common Sense, Veterans of Foreign Wars, Veterans of Modern Warfare, Vietnam Veterans of America, countless other faith-based associations, the Methodist General Board of Church and Society, the United Church of Christ. You could run through a huge number of faith-based organizations, a huge number of human rights and rights organizations from all over our country. I urge Senators to check with the rights organizations and others in their own States. Almost every State in the Union--the Kentucky Protection and Advocacy Association, the Michigan Protection and Advocacy Services. You could run a long list of people who believe the time has come. I would ask unanimous consent that the full list of these supporters be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, on behalf of Senator Murray, that Jake Cornett, a fellow in her office, be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the 112th Congress.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the cloture vote on the Sportsmen's Act (S. 3525). If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported cloture on this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for such time as I have left, let me make it clear: The Paul legislation requires all identifiable persons associated with organizing, planning, participating in the attacks, trespass, breach, or attempted attack, have been identified by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Bureau of Diplomatic Security, or other United States law enforcement entity, and are in United States custody. We are talking about other countries. That is an absolutely impossible-to-fulfill requirement and that is why it would result in the cutoff of aid automatically, and that is why it is dangerous.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield such time as I may use. I will be happy to have the Senator speak last if that is what he wants to do. We have heard today from 110 retired generals and admirals that the suspension of U.S. aid is not in America's interest and that assistance is a critical component of America's national security strategy. We have heard from Jewish Americans about the impacts this bill would have on our relationship with Israel at what they have called ``a time of turmoil and uncertainty,'' and ``the U.S. government needs to be able to use all available tools to influence events in the region.'' It would affect Israel's security if the United States were to suddenly pull out its assistance and change its relationship with Yemen and particularly change its relationship with Egypt. I have heard from the State Department, which said this legislation ``will weaken democracies'' and ``play into the hands of extremists.'' With respect to Libya, Senator McCain has just spoken eloquently about Chris Stevens. He knew Chris Stevens. We knew him on our committee. He worked for Senator Lugar, and we knew him as a Pearson fellow. There was no more dedicated person. We just confirmed him and sent him over this May. I guarantee that the last thing he would want is his death being used as an excuse for the United States to cut off Libya and to disengage. The 30,000 people who marched today marched for America. They marched for themselves. They marched for democracy. They marched for what Chris Stevens was investing in. I don't think we want to punish those people and that government because of what happened. With respect to Egypt, the United States derives extraordinarily important security benefits from that relationship. Shutting down American military assistance to Egypt would jeopardize our nonproliferation initiatives. It would undermine efforts to stop the smuggling of weapons and interdicting of arms into Gaza, which affects the security of Israel. It would undermine the 1979 peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. Those of us who have traveled to Israel in recent months have heard concern from Israeli officials about the prospects of suspension of American military assistance to Egypt. They have already talked about it. They are nervous about it, and they think it would have a profound negative impact on their security and Israel. These are the connections the Paul legislation just doesn't face up to. Senator Paul's legislation would essentially shut down our ability to work with the new civilian government. And while we are working to build the same kind of alliance with them we have had previously, it would really interrupt that and say to them that the United States of America is not interested in having that kind of an alliance. With respect to Pakistan, the reality is the United States has vital national security interests in Pakistan, all of which are at stake. They have a population of 190 million people, a troubled economy, pockets of extremism, and a robust nuclear arsenal. We can't turn our backs on any of that, and I think we need to remember that our aid plays a critical role in supporting our interests and our values. The Paul amendment would make us less secure, and it is in no one's interest. Whatever time we have, I reserve the remainder.

Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator plan to use his time?

Mr. KERRY. How much time is remaining altogether?

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say quickly to the Senator from Kentucky, whom I asked the other day whether he has ever been to Pakistan or Egypt--I think if he had, he would know something more about the millions of people in those countries who aspire to democracy and who have invested in our values and are trying to have a different future. I particularly--``resent'' is not a particularly attractive word, but to hear him say that the Foreign Relations Committee has done nothing on Dr. Afridi does a disservice to the efforts we have been making in what is called a quiet and thoughtful diplomacy. Not all diplomacy is conducted by passing a fly-by-night amendment on the floor of the Senate, pretending that is going to improve relations or change the world. When we sit down with people and talk through problems, we can work out a resolution. We had a long conversation just a day ago with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan about Dr. Afridi. That was not the first conversation. For months some of us have been talking with Pakistan about how we resolve this issue, which does, incidentally, have something to do with the law of another country, the politics of another country, and the political demands and needs of another country. It is not always the best way to resolve those things simply by racing to the floor of the Senate and saying: Here, do what we tell you. I am afraid that is not always how it works. So I think the Senator from Kentucky has a lot to learn about how we get things done within the international community. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, could we have order in the Senate.

Mr. KERRY. Yes, I object.

Mr. KERRY. Not on my time, no. I will do it on the Senator's time.

Mr. KERRY. We will hold off and come back.

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

Mr. KERRY. I ask the Senator this question. We all understand the normal rules of the Senate. This is a big policy, cutting off four countries' aid with a set of circumstances that is so rigid it may encompass countries such as Israel and others. The normal rules of comity are that something such as this would go through the appropriate committee. That is why we have committees. The Senator from South Carolina is a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. This has never been to the Foreign Relations Committee. Does the Senator believe some policy as important as this doesn't deserve a hearing, doesn't deserve a process? I think the Senator knows that as the chairman I have never slowed down a process of our committee. The normal rules of comity ought to require this to go through the committee.

Mr. KERRY. I will just take 1 minute before I yield back. With respect to the question, first of all--I obviously do not run the Senate so I cannot speak about what happened with respect to these other pieces of legislation, but I am responsible for the Foreign Relations Committee. This particular amendment was filed at the desk on September 19. We are here under rule XIV. That is not months of work. The first time I heard of it was when it came to the desk. So this could well have been a policy we amended in the committee, that we worked on appropriately, came up with some appropriate way of dealing with legitimate issues. I am not denigrating the legitimacy of some of the issues the Senator from Kentucky raises. We had a very profound conversation with the Foreign Minister of Pakistan the other day. The Foreign Relations Committee met with her. We went into Dr. Afridi's situation in some detail, and there are other issues raised here. But just to come in out of the whole blue and file it at the desk and say let's change years of policy with a country that we, in the case of Egypt, desperately rely on with respect to the peace process in the Middle East, sustaining the peace agreement with Israel--it just defies rationale about how you make good foreign policy. I will have more to say about it in a moment, but I just want to make it clear this did not come to the floor until September 19 at the desk and it is here under rule XIV.

Mr. KERRY. I don't know how much time we have.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to thank Senator Durbin for his determined support of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and for his request for the Senate to approve the treaty today. I appreciate the thought that he has put into the consideration of this treaty and the work he has done in advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. It has been 22 years since the landmark Americans with Disabilities Act knocked down barriers to employment and government services here at home. Now it is time to do the same for Americans with disabilities when they travel overseas. This is not an issue that pits Republicans against Democrats. The Foreign Relations Committee approved this treaty in a strong bipartisan vote on July 26, the 22nd anniversary of the ADA. I am deeply grateful to former Majority Leader Dole and President George Herbert Walker Bush, who have joined a bipartisan group of Senators, including Senators Lugar, Barrasso, Moran, Coons, Durbin, Harkin, and Udall in advocating for such an important cause. Senator Kennedy would be proud if he could see us coming together today in support of the Convention as we did 2 decades ago in support of the ADA. Members from both sides of the aisle worked hard to achieve this moment. The questions have been answered. The only question that remains is whether we will be remembered for approving the Disabilities Convention and extending essential protections for the millions of Americans with disabilities, or for finding excuses to delay and defer our core responsibility as Senators. I have heard from countless advocates on this issue--from the Perkins School for the Blind in my home State to disabled Americans and veterans groups across the country, all of whom tell me that this Convention will make a difference in their daily lives. And, believe me, it will. This Convention will extend essential protections to disabled persons everywhere, including our disabled servicemen and women and veterans when they travel, live, study or work overseas. It will enshrine the principles of the ADA on the international level and provide us with a critical tool as we advocate for the adoption of its standards globally. We already live up to the principles of this treaty here in America. Our strong laws--including the ADA--are more than sufficient to allow us to comply with this treaty from day one. Nothing is going to change here at home. But our delay in joining this treaty has an impact abroad. For decades the world has looked to America as a leader on disabilities rights. It is hard to believe but some are now questioning our resolve--because of the failure to ratify this treaty. That is not acceptable and that is not what America is about. It isn't a question of time. It is a question of priorities--a question of willpower, not capacity. This treaty reflects our highest ideals as a nation, and now is the time to act.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, last summer Massachusetts lost a gentleman, the fishing industry lost an icon and I lost a friend. For years Joe Garland served as the unofficial historian of Gloucester, MA--its fishermen, its boats and its life. If you visit the Fisherman's Memorial on Gloucester's waterfront on a stormy winter day, the statue of the Heroic Mariner seems to be steering the whole town into the wind toward fair weather. And if you look closely at the statue, you can almost see Joe Garland in its carved granite face, full of grit and determination, guiding his beloved Gloucester through headwinds and troubled waters. He's been gone for more than a year now, but his memory lives on through his loving wife Helen, his family, his friends and through the continuing legacy of the schooner Adventure. In my Boston office, I have a copy of his book about the Adventure, which he helped to restore. When I received it many years ago, it arrived with an invitation from Joe to tour the schooner and, of course, I didn't waste any time accepting his invitation. He welcomed me aboard, and his tour made the Adventure's history come alive--from its construction in 1926 through its career as a ``highliner,'' the biggest moneymaker of them all, landing nearly $4 million worth of cod and halibut during her career. As Joe himself once wrote, ``The Adventure is a survivor, not a vision. She is here, real and beautiful . . . I can stand on those decks with the whole-sail breeze, arms hooked into the rigging, and watch her go, watch the miles bubble out from under the stern as they have done now for more than fifty [now nearing 100] years. She is fantastic!'' As we celebrate the historic restoration of the Adventure, and celebrate Joe's incredible life, I know that he is smiling down on us today, on what would have been his 90th birthday. Mr. President, the world weathers so many storms, but at the center of each we find people of character who revive our hope and give us strength. Joe Garland was such a man, and we are all blessed to have had his strength and his character as an example, and we are equally blessed that he left us with such a marvelous schooner, the Adventure, as an enduring reminder of his life.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I would like to recognize the accomplishments of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts (BCBSMA), a company that has provided affordable health insurance options for families in the Commonwealth for the past 75 years. As our Nation's health care system has evolved, BCBSMA has remained a leader in the industry by focusing on the principles of service, leadership, and innovation. In fact, it was the first organization of its kind to offer statewide insurance coverage for hospitalization-- providing all working families a financially realistic option so they could afford a hospital stay when it was needed. And decades later, BCBSMA was instrumental in helping to create several of the State's best-known health maintenance organizations (HMOs). BCBSMA has been actively working to improve the health of their members through an innovative benefit design that focuses on prevention and customized wellness programs, encourages community-based care, and improves care coordination. Additionally, they have been national leaders in payment reform by designing an innovative model that has demonstrated the ability to improve the quality of patient care while simultaneously slowing the growth of health care spending. In 2008, BCBSMA created a new payment system called the Alternative Quality Contract (AQC). This model rewards physicians and hospitals for the quality and outcomes of the care they provide to patients. Providers receive a global budget for their patients and are responsible for any excessive spending and are rewarded for quality. This combination of the global budget and pay- for-performance incentives establishes provider accountability for both the quality and cost of care. BCBSMA isn't just committed to its members; they are leaders in the community with a distinct focus on corporate citizenship and civic engagement. They spend countless hours working within the community to make a measurable and sustainable impact on issues such as child development, healthy environments, and family nutrition. During the last year, BCBSMA associates volunteered to perform more than 26,000 hours of community service throughout Massachusetts. In their tradition of supporting the work of not-for-profit organizations, BCBSMA is commemorating their 75th anniversary by providing grants to community stakeholders working to advance the health and nutrition of families facing economic hardship. BCBSMA founded the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts Foundation in 2001, one of the largest health-focused private philanthropies in New England, to expand access to health care. The Foundation played an important role in the passage of Massachusetts health reform in 2006 by providing reliable data and objective analysis to policy-makers and convening stakeholders for sessions of public debate. Massachusetts now has the best health care coverage rate in the Nation with 98.1 percent of residents having health insurance, including 99.8 percent of all children. Not only did BCBSMA work to expand health care coverage in the Commonwealth, they were a leader in the national effort to expand health care coverage to all Americans. BCBSMA was the only health plan in the Nation to file an amicus, or ``friend of the court'', brief in support of the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act when it was considered by the Supreme Court earlier this year. They believed the health reform law was critical to ensure that all Americans have the same health care benefits and protections that Massachusetts residents have known for years. As we continue to implement the Affordable Care Act, I am confident that BCBSMA will be there every step of the way. They are rated among the nation's best health plans for member satisfaction and quality and their commitment to both exceptional and affordable health care is clearly evident to their nearly three million members in Massachusetts. I congratulate Andrew Dreyfus, President and Chief Executive Officer, and all the employees at BCBSMA who work together to advance the availability of quality health care on this remarkable milestone. I look forward to the innovation and leadership you will deliver over the next 75 years for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the Committee on Foreign Relations I report favorably the following nomination lists which were printed in the Records 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, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ARRA, provided Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments to providers that adopt and meaningfully use electronic health records, EHRs, in their practices. While this program has helped thousands of providers, practices, and hospitals nationwide, many safety net providers and clinics have not been able to benefit from the Medicaid EHR incentives. Safety net providers serve as a critical entry point into the health care system, and provide essential health care services for millions of low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals. Given that Medicaid eligibility levels are so low in many States, it is difficult for many safety net providers to meet the 30 percent Medicaid threshold required to participate in the Medicaid EHR incentive program even though their patients are predominately low-income. Congress addressed this problem only for practitioners working in federally-qualified health centers and rural health centers by creating a 30 percent ``needy'' threshold in ARRA for those providers. Unfortunately, ARRA fails to provide a similar standard for other providers serving low-income individuals. The Medicaid Information Technology to Enhance Community Health, MITECH, Act of 2012 seeks to eliminate the barriers that prevent safety net providers from qualifying from Medicaid EHR incentives. Specifically, it would expand eligibility for meaningful use incentives to providers that practice predominantly in a qualified safety net clinic, QSNC. The act defines a QSNC as a clinic or network of clinics that is operated by a private non-profit or public entity and that has at least 30 percent of its patient volume attributable to needy individuals. The act also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a methodology to allow these clinics to be eligible for meaningful use payments as an entity, similar to the current process that exists for hospitals. I would like to thank the 13 national organizations who have been integral to the development of this legislation and who have endorsed it today, including the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the HIV Medicine Association, Mental Health America, the National Association of Public Hospitals, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the Trust for America's Health. The MITECH Act will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings, help ensure compliance with prescription drugs, and will strengthen the safety net which provides essential care to so many Americans. It is my hope that we can move forward with this bill in a bipartisan manner. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, reserving the right to object, let me first mention that, sadly, this afternoon we learned one of the four people who were killed in Libya, Glen Doherty, is a Massachusetts native, a former Navy Seal and State Department security official who was guarding and caring for the Ambassador and taking care of the wounded people there. As Senator McCain, Senator Lindsey Graham, and Senator Lieberman said on the floor yesterday, I believe cutting the aid to any of these countries right now in this fashion is not the way to honor the memory of Ambassador Chris Stevens. He went there in great danger to help that country be free and have an opportunity for democracy. Glen Doherty did the same thing. He put his life on the line in order to help the Libyans. The Senator from Kentucky might be surprised to know that the Libyan people--by vast numbers--are grateful to the United States and are mourning the death of Ambassador Stevens. I heard the Senator from Kentucky--frankly, in a kind of arrogant statement is really the only way I can frame it--say several times: Start behaving like a civilized nation. Well, by whose standard and when? The Libyan and Egyptian Governments didn't do what is happening there. The Yemen Government sent its people to protect our people, and we helped negotiate the transfer of authority to this new government in Yemen. Are they having difficulties? Yes. Go back and look at the United States of America in the 1700s. We had some difficulties. We had to write slavery out of the Constitution, not to mention a bunch of other things. It takes time. The arrogance of suggesting that we are going to judge whether they are civilized today or tomorrow because a mob or a bunch of militants took matters into their own hands would just be so self-defeating and such a narrow effort that anyone could possibly conceive. I ask if the Senator has ever been to Pakistan? Has the Senator ever been to Egypt? The Senator doesn't want to answer. I presume that means he has not. He ought to go to Egypt and see what those people are struggling to do. There was a revolution in Tehrir Square. It wasn't an Islamic revolution; it was a generational revolution, a bunch of young people with smart phones tweeting and Googling each other trying to touch the world and have a future. The Senator wants to cut off American assistance to these nascent democratic efforts? Whatever happened to the great commitment of the conservative movement in America to freedom and democracy and to help it develop? Just turn our back on it and pull out the aid? What the heck. Because we don't think they are civilized. I find it kind of stunning when the Senator says: Foreign countries that aren't friendly. The countries didn't do these things. It is the militant extremists and radical terrorists within those countries whom those people are struggling to beat back. Right now there are troops in the western part of Pakistan losing their lives by fighting extremists. Cut off the aid, and we send the message: If you don't do exactly what we say, exactly when we say, exactly the way we want, we are not going to give you the pittance we give you. We give less than 1 percent of the entire budget of the United States of America. Less than 1 percent goes into all of our foreign operations, all of our embassies, our security, and our aid. It is 1 percent. The impact is extraordinary. The Senator wants to just cut it off? OK. We have 130,000 troops in Afghanistan, and they are largely supplied now somewhat from the northern route that has been created. They are also supplied from Karachi by road all the way over the Khyber Pass and down into Afghanistan. We have gone through a long process of working with the Pakistanis to be able to renew and do that. As everybody knows, we have decimated al-Qaida in the western part of their country. Civilians are being killed in their country in an effort to protect our country. They have endured that. Their political system has endured that, and we are just going to turn around and say we are going to pull the aid out and we only want to do it with 15 minutes on the floor of the Senate? Here is a major policy consideration, and we just want 15 minutes because it is that simple. These are four countries which are all critical to the future of the region in the Middle East. Egypt is an essential partner with respect to the potential of peace in the Middle East, one-quarter of the Arab world. I have been to Egypt many times. I have sat with the new President, President Morrissey, and I have met with others engaged in this transformation. They are trying to be a legitimate democracy. Yes, their people won the election, and we are not exactly on the same page, but that is what happens in democracies. That is what happens when people vote. Are we not going to respect their democracy? I just say to my friend from Kentucky, there are critical issues at stake. We are not buying it. What we are doing is trying to help them to be able to make this transformation to a full-throated, full-blooded democracy that can respect its court system and its elected institutions, and it doesn't come easily. Their police were decimated in the course of the revolution. There was corruption and they are working to change that. There is a whole unbelievable transformation taking place. It is not going to be pretty. It is difficult. There are a lot of unscrupulous people we all know have hated us for a long time who would love to get the upper hand. If we pull out, we give them the upper hand. Stay there and we have an opportunity to do what Chris Stevens, Glen Doherty, and a lot of other people were doing, which is stand and fight for the interest of the United States of America because we have real interests in those places. That is what this is about. First of all, it deserves more than 15 minutes. Secondly, it is not appropriate to do it on a veterans bill where we desperately need to get this help to our veterans. Do it freestanding. We ought to do it in the proper way. Do it through our committee. We will have a hearing. I am happy to have that done properly. This is not the way to do it, and this is not the moment to do it. It would have a profoundly negative impact that could contribute to even more violence and not stem it if that were our reaction. Madam President, I do object, and hopefully at some point I will be happy to have this debate. It is a worthwhile one, but this is not the time and this is not the bill.

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

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, ARRA, provided Medicare and Medicaid incentive payments to providers that adopt and meaningfully use electronic health records, EHRs, in their practices. While this program has helped thousands of providers, practices, and hospitals nationwide, many safety net providers and clinics have not been able to benefit from the Medicaid EHR incentives. Safety net providers serve as a critical entry point into the health care system, and provide essential health care services for millions of low-income, uninsured and underinsured individuals. Given that Medicaid eligibility levels are so low in many States, it is difficult for many safety net providers to meet the 30 percent Medicaid threshold required to participate in the Medicaid EHR incentive program even though their patients are predominately low-income. Congress addressed this problem only for practitioners working in federally-qualified health centers and rural health centers by creating a 30 percent ``needy'' threshold in ARRA for those providers. Unfortunately, ARRA fails to provide a similar standard for other providers serving low-income individuals. The Medicaid Information Technology to Enhance Community Health, MITECH, Act of 2012 seeks to eliminate the barriers that prevent safety net providers from qualifying from Medicaid EHR incentives. Specifically, it would expand eligibility for meaningful use incentives to providers that practice predominantly in a qualified safety net clinic, QSNC. The act defines a QSNC as a clinic or network of clinics that is operated by a private non-profit or public entity and that has at least 30 percent of its patient volume attributable to needy individuals. The act also directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to develop a methodology to allow these clinics to be eligible for meaningful use payments as an entity, similar to the current process that exists for hospitals. I would like to thank the 13 national organizations who have been integral to the development of this legislation and who have endorsed it today, including the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the HIV Medicine Association, Mental Health America, the National Association of Public Hospitals, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, and the Trust for America's Health. The MITECH Act will allow safety net clinics to better communicate with patients about necessary screenings, help ensure compliance with prescription drugs, and will strengthen the safety net which provides essential care to so many Americans. It is my hope that we can move forward with this bill in a bipartisan manner. I ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.