John Kerry

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, first of all, I wish to say what a pleasure it is to welcome Senator Sarbanes back. I had the pleasure of sitting beside him on the Foreign Relations Committee for 24 years. We miss his judgment and wisdom. We could use it these days. I wish to welcome Governor O'Malley. I can't think of a time, when people have stood up to laud a fellow Senator, that a Governor of their State is sitting and listening. All of the comments to this moment and beyond will undoubtedly echo the remarkable affection that everybody has for Barbara Mikulski and particularly the high regard in which she is held. This is a very special celebration for the longest serving woman in the history of the Congress, 12,862 days today and counting. In that time--I recall when I first came here there was one woman serving, and that was Senator Nancy Kassebaum--it is fair to say Barbara Mikulski has been one of the pivotal forces in creating and assembling what I would call a true ``band of sisters''--the women with whom she has served in the Senate, each of whom makes extraordinary contributions to this institution. We have heard from other colleagues that her career is filled with milestones, and it is. She is the first Democratic woman to serve in both Houses of Congress. She is the first Democratic woman elected to Senate leadership. She is the first woman elected to statewide office in Maryland. These are just a few. When Barbara came to the Senate in 1986 after 10 years in the House of Representatives, women were still, as she describes it--these are her words--``a bit of a novelty'' in the Senate. Indeed, then, it was only Barbara and Senator Nancy Kassebaum. But now Barbara says: We're not viewed as novelties. We're not viewed as celebrities. We're viewed as U.S. Senators. One of the reasons for that is that Barbara Mikulski has demonstrated a seriousness of purpose, an ability to legislate, and an ability to make friends and bring people together that has defined her role as the dean of the women in the Senate. Some of her women colleagues in the Senate call her Dean. Others call her Coach Barb. But no matter what they call her, she has brought them together in this bipartisan sisterhood, as we just heard from the Senator from Texas. She holds workshops and serves as a mentor to all newcomers and organizes regular monthly dinners. They don't always agree on everything, but the dinners are what some of them have called a ``zone of civility,'' which is something the Senate could use a little more of these days. Again, it is Barbara Mikulski's example that helps point us in that direction. But for all of her firsts, I would say to my colleagues that Barbara Mikulski's career has never been about gender as much as it has been about agenda. I have had the privilege of working with her enough on different issues of being what she calls one of her Galahads. I have seen her laser focus on what is right, on her conscience, on her gut, on her sense of what the people of Maryland want, and what she thinks is her duty as a Senator. That is why I wanted her on the Speaker's platform in 2004 in Boston at the convention, and she delivered just the right message in her forceful and commanding way. She stood up there and declared: When women seek power, we don't seek it for ourselves; we seek it to make a difference in the lives of other people. There is no arguing, as we heard from a number of colleagues, about what an extraordinary difference Barbara Mikulski has made in the lives of other people, not just Marylanders but all Americans. She has been an extraordinary advocate for the Goddard Space Center, for the Wallops Flight Facility, and for Johns Hopkins Applied Science Lab in Maryland, as well as the Port of Baltimore and Chesapeake Bay cleanup efforts. For decades, she proudly worked beside my colleague of 26 years Ted Kennedy. She loved Ted Kennedy and Ted Kennedy loved her. Together, on the Health Committee, they worked to make universal health care a reality. Her role when Senator Kennedy was sick was an extraordinary role of picking up that baton and helping to bring it across the finish line. Along the way she became a leader on women's health, fighting for equality in health research and making sure women get the quality of care they deserve. She was one of the chief sponsors of Medicaid financing of mammograms and Pap smears. Personally, I will never forget how Barbara reacted when the National Institutes of Health said it would not include women in trials of aspirin as a preventive for heart attacks because ``their hormones present too many biological variables.'' Barbara fired back: ``My hormones rage because of comments like that.'' Her proudest accomplishment, she says, is the Spousal Anti- Impoverishment Act, which helps to keep seniors from going bankrupt while paying for a spouse's nursing home care. But throughout her career, Barbara Mikulski has fought to strengthen the safety net for children, for seniors, and for anyone who needed somebody to stand for them or push open a door for them. That fight started in east Baltimore where her Polish immigrant grandparents ran a bakery and her father a grocery store. She says she often watched her father open the doors to his grocery store for local steelworkers so they could buy their lunches before the morning shift. She got it in her head at that time that she would rather be opening doors for others on the inside than knocking on doors from the outside. So no surprise, after college she got a job as a social worker helping at-risk children and educating seniors about Medicare. She got involved in politics by organizing community groups to stop a highway from going through the Highlandtown neighborhood where she grew up. Let me tell my colleagues, nobody had ever seen anything like her. At one rally, she jumped up on a table and cried: The British couldn't take Fells Point, the termites couldn't take Fells Point, and goddamn if we'll let the State Roads Commission take Fells Point. As they say on ESPN, the crowd went nuts, and the roads commission never knew what hit them. And I assure my colleagues, that was a nonprofane use of our Lord's name. Again, no surprise, that led to her election to the Baltimore City Council. I think that explains a lot about just how good a politician she is--how well she knows the street. I think every one of her colleagues, all of us, are in awe of Barbara's ability to focus on the street emotion, on the simplicity of an argument, and to be able to sum it up in a razor-like comment that just cuts to the quick and makes the rest of us who search around for the words seem pretty inept in the process. Whether it is at Camden Yards, Fells Point, the Eastern Shore, the Washington suburbs, or up along the Mason Dixon Line, Barbara has her finger on the political pulse of Marylanders. She understands their concerns, shares their aspirations, and sums up their hopes and their dreams in a few short sentences that nobody else can parallel. If anyone expected Barbara Mikulski to accept being just a novelty or a celebrity in Congress, they obviously had no understanding of her deep roots as an immigrant, being an American, and the values she learned about hard work in her family. If anyone expects her to slow down just because she is now the longest serving woman in the history of Congress, they don't know Barbara Mikulski. A couple of years ago, Barbara and I talked--I think it was at one of our retreats--about how similar Maryland and Massachusetts are in certain ways, especially their rural and fishing histories which we actually both have. She told me she wasn't much of a fisherman, but she liked to hunt. The only problem she cited was the recoil of the rifle given that she stands 4 feet 11 inches tall. Well, it is clear from the record, clear from the comments of all of her colleagues, and clear from this extraordinary longest serving record in the Congress and all that she has accomplished that she stands as one of the tallest Senators and packs a punch way beyond her 4 feet 11 inches. We are proud to have her as a colleague, and we are in awe of her ability to galvanize action, which is what this institution should be all about.

Mr. KERRY. I believe he included my name for 10 minutes at the same time. Madam President, I believe Senator Reid included my name in that list for 10 minutes--I ask unanimous consent.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I wish to bring attention to Dr. Richard E. Wylie, Endicott College's fifth and current president. Through this post and a variety of other positions in higher education, Dr. Wylie has fully devoted himself to academic excellence. Before assuming his role as president of Endicott College in Beverly, MA, Dr. Wylie served as a professor and administrator at a variety of other institutions, including the University of Connecticut, Temple University, and Lesley College, and served on the board of New England Association of Schools and Colleges and the board at the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts. Outside of the classroom, he has written articles on higher education, authored a monograph on bilingual and multicultural education, and published a variety of children's books. Most recently, Dr. Richard Wylie has overseen the tremendous growth and transformation of Endicott College. When he assumed his role in 1987, Endicott was a small, two-year women's college; through his efforts, the College earned four-year status, became coeducational, tripled its enrollment, and greatly expanded its academic offerings. Today, Endicott College is recognized for its variety of degree programs, including its brand new doctoral program. Some of our country's greatest assets are educators like Dr. Wylie who go above and beyond the call of duty every single day to instill a love of knowledge in our country's citizens. His commitment to education will inspire his students well beyond graduation and will improve the sense of community and citizenship that is vital to any educational institution, and to this Nation. I congratulate Dr. Richard E. Wylie on the occasion of his 25th Anniversary Scholarship Gala, thank him for his service in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and salute all that he's accomplished.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, for the past year the people of Italy have been commemorating the 150th anniversary of Italian Unification with a series of events and exhibitions throughout Italy and the world. In this country, the Italian Embassy hosted a series of concerts, museum exhibitions, and lectures, which were widely attended and have educated and entertained Americans about the stirring story of Italy and the beauty of its culture. The Ambassador of Italy who initiated this series of commemorative events, Giulio Terzi di Sant'Agata, deserves recognition for organizing this remarkable program for the American people. We wish Ambassador Terzi well in his new job as Foreign Minister, and we welcome his successor, Claudio Bisogniero, as the new Ambassador of the Italian Republic to the United States. There were many outstanding moments on the road to Italian unification--most notably March 15, 1861, the day Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed the King of a single Italian state. But several weeks earlier, on February 18, 1861, the future King of Italy convened the first Italian Parliament in Turin, establishing an Italian democratic tradition that has known both triumph and tragedy. Of course, Americans don't have to go to Italy or a cultural event to appreciate the Italian roots of our own democratic tradition. Not only did Roman history and conceptions of government inform and inspire the Founders of our own government, but the sons and daughters of Italy are all around us serving the cause of American democracy. It would be impossible to name more than a few, but even a partial list gives a sense of the magnitude of the Italian-American contribution to our democracy: John Pastore, the first Italian-American elected to this Senate; Fiorello LaGuardia, the legendary mayor of New York; Geraldine Ferraro, the first woman to be on a national ticket; Nancy Pelosi, the first female Speaker of the House; Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito; and Leon Panetta, our current Secretary of Defense. This week the Senate adopted a resolution that I introduced commemorating this anniversary and the abiding relationship between our two countries. I am glad to be joined by my colleagues, Senators Barrasso, Casey, Enzi, Gillibrand, Lugar, Schumer, and Shaheen, as original cosponsors. This 150th anniversary year closes during challenging times for a new generation of Italians. It is worth pausing here in Washington to salute our ally, from whom we have drawn so much talent and inspiration. We wish the citizens of the Italian Republic our best, with knowledge that during the past 150 years their Republic has endured many challenges and confidence that they will rise even higher.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Madam President, yesterday the world marked the anniversary of the triple tragedy--the earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear crisis--that struck Japan on March 11 of last year. I rise today to commemorate that heartbreaking day for our good friend and ally and to pay tribute to the remarkable resilience of the Japanese people in the face of this unprecedented series of catastrophic events. Even as Japan labors to rebuild devastated regions in the northeast, it continues to make enormous contributions to the international community, so let's take this moment to acknowledge the ambitious reconstruction effort underway in Japan and its indispensable role in world affairs. Any one of these three events--a magnitude 9.0 earthquake that destroyed entire towns and villages, a tsunami that swept away thousands, and the ensuing nuclear crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant--would have been enough to overwhelm and paralyze any country, any government. To have all three occur at the same time simply strains the imagination. Yet the Japanese Government and the Japanese people responded to these events with their characteristic resilience, both in the immediate aftermath when local first responders and Japan's Self-Defense Forces responded so heroically in the face of almost unimaginable destruction and today in rebuilding shattered lives and communities by seeking new opportunities for economic growth and innovation, including through new green energy initiatives. And if there is a silver lining to the tragic events of 3/11, it is that the U.S.-Japan alliance once more proved its own strength and vitality, demonstrating the deep bonds of friendship and affection that tie our two nations together. Together, we launched the largest joint military operation in our history, with more than 20,000 Americans supporting the Japan Self-Defense Forces in Operation Tomodachi. The Department of Defense alone provided 24,000 personnel, 190 aircraft, and 24 Navy ships to assist with humanitarian and disaster relief operations. To this day, our country's joint efforts continue through public-private partnerships for reconstruction and through the TOMODACHI initiative. This program, spearheaded by our Ambassador to Japan--and my good friend--John Roos, is focused on partnerships and programs to empower Japan's next generation and to strengthen ties between Americans and Japanese. Madam President, nations and relationships between nations often display their truest colors during times of stress, challenge, and tragedy. As we look back at the events of a year ago and pause in remembrance of those who lost their lives, let's also give thanks for the strength, health, and vitality of the partnership between the United States and Japan.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Snowe, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Scott Brown and Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller, I am introducing the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2012. In the House, I am very pleased that Congressmen Barney Frank and Frank Guinta will be introducing similar legislation. In Massachusetts, commercial fishing supports more than 77,000 jobs. Recreational fishing is also an important part of our maritime economy and our local research institutions are world-renowned. However, today our fishermen continue to face economic peril and they are deeply frustrated by science and research they do not trust. We have to put the broken pieces back together and restore both trust in Washington and economic security for this industry and the brave fishermen who get up every day and go out on those boats to make a living for their families. In short, we need a new path. It starts by remaking the scientific research process and transforming it into something that does a much better job of including our fishermen in the data collection that forms the foundation of the rules and regulations that can determine their future. We can take an important first step in improving the relationship between our fishermen and Federal regulators by passing the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act. The cornerstone of this bill is returning the use of Saltonstall- Kennedy funds to our fishermen, as was the original intent of its creators. In 1954, Leverett Saltonstall and John F. Kennedy, Democratic and Republican Senators from Massachusetts, created the Saltonstall- Kennedy fund for fisheries research and development. Under their law, 30 percent of the duties on imported fish products was required to be transferred to a grant program to benefit the U.S. fishing industry. It was meant to be a permanent appropriation to promote science, research, and the development of American fisheries. But over years of tight budgets the use of these funds has gotten off track: to fund other priorities, the money has been going to places other than it was originally intended. In 2010, the funds collected from the import of fishery products is estimated to be $376.6 million. Thirty percent of that total is approximately $113 million that should be used to improve science and help our fisheries. Unfortunately last year, only $8.4 million of that $113 million was used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--for grants for fisheries research and development projects. The remaining funds were used by NOAA for their operations. This simply can not continue, especially given the current situation facing our fisheries. Our bill will restore the investment to help the fishermen and communities for whom Senators Saltonstall and Kennedy originally intended it to protect. The New England fishing industry has been facing a serious crisis due to declining fish stocks and increasing Federal regulations. The transition to a new management plan has increased mistrust between fishermen and the Federal Government to the highest it has ever been during my 27 years in the Senate. The Gulf of Maine cod crisis we are currently facing is emblematic of this distrust. Within 3 years of each other, two radically different stock assessments were released--the first assessment showed a species on the rise while the most recent survey shows a dramatic decline. Many of our fishermen do not believe in the new numbers because they have not been included in the process. This bill would provide local stakeholders with funding to help develop the accurate and credible science and stakeholder participation that we need. By giving stakeholders the ability to determine how Saltonstall- Kennedy funds get spent, this bill would let New England decide what the unmet priorities in our fisheries research are and give them the funds necessary to do something about them. It could pay for things like side-by-side trawl surveys, done in cooperation with NOAA and our fishermen, so that we can find out if there are fish that are being missed by NOAA vessels and make sure that data gets into the assessments. It would allow for money to go into figuring out if there are more advanced tools, like long-range sonar and other fish imaging capabilities, which could do a better job at determining how many fish are in the sea. And by giving preference to public-private partnerships, it can help rebuild trust between fishermen and Federal regulators. Most importantly, it helps give our local fishing communities a bigger role in making these decisions. We know that every region has specific priorities that they would like to see funded. Under this bill, money from the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act would be used to implement regional fishery investment plans, which would be developed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils, released in the Federal Register for public comment, and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The priorities would include everything from more frequent stock assessments, better recreational data, to crucial habitat restoration. This legislation will help give our fishermen a better chance to develop a clear, open dialogue with Federal regulators to determine we are up against and what we can do to fix it. It will help preserve our fishermen's livelihoods, their families' economic security and help ensure our fishing industry can survive for future generations. Most importantly, at a time of bitter division, it will restore trust--the rock upon which good governing has always been built. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, along with Senator Snowe, Senator Whitehouse, Senator Scott Brown and Commerce Committee Chairman Rockefeller, I am introducing the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act of 2012. In the House, I am very pleased that Congressmen Barney Frank and Frank Guinta will be introducing similar legislation. In Massachusetts, commercial fishing supports more than 77,000 jobs. Recreational fishing is also an important part of our maritime economy and our local research institutions are world-renowned. However, today our fishermen continue to face economic peril and they are deeply frustrated by science and research they do not trust. We have to put the broken pieces back together and restore both trust in Washington and economic security for this industry and the brave fishermen who get up every day and go out on those boats to make a living for their families. In short, we need a new path. It starts by remaking the scientific research process and transforming it into something that does a much better job of including our fishermen in the data collection that forms the foundation of the rules and regulations that can determine their future. We can take an important first step in improving the relationship between our fishermen and Federal regulators by passing the Fisheries Investment and Regulatory Relief Act. The cornerstone of this bill is returning the use of Saltonstall- Kennedy funds to our fishermen, as was the original intent of its creators. In 1954, Leverett Saltonstall and John F. Kennedy, Democratic and Republican Senators from Massachusetts, created the Saltonstall- Kennedy fund for fisheries research and development. Under their law, 30 percent of the duties on imported fish products was required to be transferred to a grant program to benefit the U.S. fishing industry. It was meant to be a permanent appropriation to promote science, research, and the development of American fisheries. But over years of tight budgets the use of these funds has gotten off track: to fund other priorities, the money has been going to places other than it was originally intended. In 2010, the funds collected from the import of fishery products is estimated to be $376.6 million. Thirty percent of that total is approximately $113 million that should be used to improve science and help our fisheries. Unfortunately last year, only $8.4 million of that $113 million was used by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--NOAA--for grants for fisheries research and development projects. The remaining funds were used by NOAA for their operations. This simply can not continue, especially given the current situation facing our fisheries. Our bill will restore the investment to help the fishermen and communities for whom Senators Saltonstall and Kennedy originally intended it to protect. The New England fishing industry has been facing a serious crisis due to declining fish stocks and increasing Federal regulations. The transition to a new management plan has increased mistrust between fishermen and the Federal Government to the highest it has ever been during my 27 years in the Senate. The Gulf of Maine cod crisis we are currently facing is emblematic of this distrust. Within 3 years of each other, two radically different stock assessments were released--the first assessment showed a species on the rise while the most recent survey shows a dramatic decline. Many of our fishermen do not believe in the new numbers because they have not been included in the process. This bill would provide local stakeholders with funding to help develop the accurate and credible science and stakeholder participation that we need. By giving stakeholders the ability to determine how Saltonstall- Kennedy funds get spent, this bill would let New England decide what the unmet priorities in our fisheries research are and give them the funds necessary to do something about them. It could pay for things like side-by-side trawl surveys, done in cooperation with NOAA and our fishermen, so that we can find out if there are fish that are being missed by NOAA vessels and make sure that data gets into the assessments. It would allow for money to go into figuring out if there are more advanced tools, like long-range sonar and other fish imaging capabilities, which could do a better job at determining how many fish are in the sea. And by giving preference to public-private partnerships, it can help rebuild trust between fishermen and Federal regulators. Most importantly, it helps give our local fishing communities a bigger role in making these decisions. We know that every region has specific priorities that they would like to see funded. Under this bill, money from the Saltonstall-Kennedy Act would be used to implement regional fishery investment plans, which would be developed by the Regional Fishery Management Councils, released in the Federal Register for public comment, and approved by the Secretary of Commerce. The priorities would include everything from more frequent stock assessments, better recreational data, to crucial habitat restoration. This legislation will help give our fishermen a better chance to develop a clear, open dialogue with Federal regulators to determine we are up against and what we can do to fix it. It will help preserve our fishermen's livelihoods, their families' economic security and help ensure our fishing industry can survive for future generations. Most importantly, at a time of bitter division, it will restore trust--the rock upon which good governing has always been built. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, on rollcall vote No. 33, the Wyden amendment No. 1817, I mistakenly voted aye and meant to vote no. It will not change the outcome. I ask unanimous consent that my vote be reflected as a no.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Thank you, Mr. President. Talk Has Consequences Mr. President, several of us in the Senate have run for the office of President of the United States. Two of us have been our party's nominees, and dozens of others have played major roles in tough campaigns. So none of us in the Senate are strangers to the rough and tumble of American politics. I think we all understand on a personal level what the humorist said at the turn of the century when he wrote: ``Politics ain't beanbag.'' One has to have a thick skin and a strong backbone to survive in this business. One has to be able to take a punch and deliver one, and we all understand that. So it is not as an innocent that I come to the floor today to say that I was troubled--deeply troubled--to read an op-ed in this morning's Washington Post by the likely Republican nominee for President Mitt Romney. It was an attack on the administration's Iran policy, and it was as inaccurate as it was aggressive. Every candidate for the Oval Office has the right to criticize the President. But, particularly this week, while Prime Minister Netanyahu is in Washington meeting with the administration to determine the road forward that might mean the difference between war or a diplomatic solution--particularly at that moment when so much is on the line, we all ought to remember that the nuclear issue with Iran is deadly serious business, and it ought to invite sobriety and serious-minded solutions, not sloganeering and fiction and sound bites. I don't think we should allow Iran to become another party's applause line on the Presidential stump. Talk has consequences, particularly when it is talk about war, and talk of war only helps Iran and others at this moment, by increasing the price of Iranian crude oil that pays for its nuclear program. To create false differences with the President just to score political points does nothing to move Iran off a dangerous nuclear course. Worst of all, Governor Romney's op-ed does not even do readers the courtesy of describing how a President Romney would, in fact, do anything different from what President Obama and this administration has already done. So if we are going to disagree, let's at least disagree responsibly--and honestly. So examine the op-ed I am talking about. From the very opening paragraphs, Mr. Romney garbles history. Going back to the Iranian revolution, he calls President Carter ``feckless,'' saying he did nothing for over a year while Iranian revolutionaries held Americans captive. In fact, it was the months of President Carter's negotiations, leading up to an all-night session of negotiation--the very night before the inauguration of President Reagan on January 20--that actually freed the hostages. I bring up the hostage crisis for another reason, because when those helicopters went down in the desert during the failed rescue attempt in 1980, the United States not only lost the opportunity to get our people back sooner but President Carter fundamentally lost any chance he had at reelection. Notwithstanding that reality, notwithstanding the lesson of Desert One and those helicopters that crashed and the failed mission--notwithstanding that--President Obama, whom Governor Romney calls ``the most feckless President since Carter,'' threw that lesson out the window, knowing if he attempted to go into Pakistan and failed he would probably lose his chance at reelection--notwithstanding that, he authorized the gutsy and dangerous raid in Pakistan that finally killed Osama bin Laden. Despite everything that could have gone wrong with that raid, the mission was ordered with confidence, executed with courage, and the man who plotted the September 11 attacks was finally held accountable for the murder of thousands of Americans. George W. Bush may have said, ``Wanted: Dead or Alive,'' but it was President Obama who delivered. I don't know if Governor Romney has checked the definition of the word ``feckless'' lately, but that raid ain't it. The rest of Romney's argument doesn't get any better. In fact, he goes on to propose action after action that President Obama has already taken. Just look at the analysis. Let me read the first sentences from an article in today's New York Times: To rein in Tehran's nuclear ambitions, Mitt Romney says he would conduct naval exercises in the Persian Gulf. . . . He would try to ratchet up Security Council sanctions on Iran, targeting its Revolutionary Guards, and the country's central bank and other financial institutions. And if Russia and China do not go along, he says, the United States should team up with other willing governments to put such punitive measures in place. As it turns out-- And this is part of the quote-- As it turns out, that amounts to what President Obama is doing. Ambassador Nick Burns, President Bush's lead negotiator on Iran, said: The attacks on Obama basically say, ``He's weak and we're strong.'' But when you look at the specifics, you don't see any difference. That is a quote. So let's go point by point through the Romney plan. He writes he would proceed with missile defenses to protect Iran. He ignores the fact that one of the very first things the Obama administration did was to issue its plans for the phased adaptive approach--so that we would be able to sooner protect our friends and allies against the Iranian missile threat and to provide increasing levels of capability as the technology advances. During the debate over the New START treaty, the Senate heard in great detail--including from the Commander of the Strategic Command and the Director of the Missile Defense Agency--how that particular system was going to work and how the administration planned to proceed with it. In fact, the President sent the Senate a letter affirming his commitment to missile defense, and over the past year he has stuck by that promise. So then Romney goes on to say that President Obama doesn't understand the seriousness of the threat from nuclear terrorism. Again, just look at the record: For the first time, the President set as a national goal securing all vulnerable nuclear material around the world within 4 years. He won international endorsement of that effort at the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit. Last year alone, the Department of Energy removed or eliminated over 250 kilograms of highly enriched uranium from places such as Ukraine, Belarus, Serbia, and Kazakhstan. In the budget request before Congress, the administration plans to eliminate highly enriched uranium from nine countries, including Vietnam, Ukraine, and Mexico. That is clearly an administration and leader who understands the danger of nuclear material, far more than any effort previously. Then Romney lays out the single greatest willful avoidance of facts in his article. He calls for ever-tightening sanctions on Iran. I don't know what he thinks has been going on around here for the last few years, but when President Obama took office Iran was in the ascendancy. As the Vice President used to say when he chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee: Freedom wasn't on the march; Iran was on the march. Its reach through proxies such as Hezbollah threatened the United States, its allies, and the region, and particularly, obviously, Israel. The international community was divided; diplomacy--both multilateral and bilateral--was stalled. But in June 2010, with a decisive push from President Obama, the United Nations put in place the most comprehensive and biting international sanctions the Iranian Government has ever faced--imposing restrictions on Iran's nuclear activities, ballistic missile program, conventional military exports to Iran, Iranian banks and financial transactions, and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. What is more, in coordination with allies such as the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and others, the Obama administration put in place additional measures, ratcheting up pressure on the country's petrochemical industry, oil and gas industry, and financial sector. Recently, Europe announced the ban of oil imports from Iran, which will further pressure Iran's economy, and that has come with significant leadership effort and diplomacy by Secretary Clinton and by the administration and Secretary Geithner. That is just on the multilateral front. President Obama also worked closely with Congress to pass the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Investment Act, which strengthened existing U.S. sanctions. He made it harder for the Iranian Government to buy refined petroleum and to modernize its oil and gas sector. Recently, we imposed tough new sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. So one doesn't have to take my word for it. Let me quote Iran's President Ahmadinejad, who is the one feeling the pressure. Here is what he said last fall: ``Our banks cannot make international transactions anymore.'' Today, all of these sanctions are beginning to bite. Iran is now virtually cut off from large parts of the international financial system. Almost $60 billion in energy-related projects in Iran have been put on hold or discontinued. Iran is starting to lose oil sales to key customers in Europe and Asia. All you have to do is look at the front page of today's newspapers and read the stories of Iran hastily running around and looking for additional people to buy their oil. In fact, they have lost customers in Asia. Those losses could reach up to 40 percent of its daily sales, according to the International Energy Agency. Banking sanctions have prevented several of Iran's customers from paying for its petroleum products, leaving the Central Bank short of hard currency and driving down the unofficial foreign exchange rate by 40 percent in a single month. Mr. Romney needs to understand what is going on if he wants to run for President. Just yesterday the deputy chief of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps was quoted as saying, ``The regime is at the height of isolation.'' This is the Revolutionary Guard speaking: The regime is at the height of isolation and in the midst of a technological, scientific and economic siege. We are not in a situation of imaginary threats and sanctions. Threats and sanctions against us are effectively being pursued. Iran is also divided internally and isolated diplomatically like never before. Iran's most important ally, Syria, is facing regime collapse, which a former director of Israel's Mossad recently said could be a bigger strategic setback for Iran than a military strike against them. That came from the former director of Israel's Mossad. To talk about Israel for a second, we all ought to remember that President Obama has provided record amounts of security funding to help Israel maintain its qualitative military edge. Prime Minister Netanyahu has spoken of President Obama's ironclad commitment to Israel's security. He said, ``Our security cooperation is unprecedented, and President Obama has backed those words with deeds.'' So when you add it all up, Mitt Romney evidently is trying to ignore, twist, and distort the administration's policy. For what purpose? For his own gain--simply to try to drive a wedge in American politics. It seems to be that the strategy of his campaign is to just say anything. It does not matter what it is based on--just say it. Put it out there whether or not it is true. I might say that I think that is exactly what the American people are tired of and fed up with, what has turned them off of all of our politics, and what threatens the quality of our democracy in this great country of ours. We should be crystal clear. Yes, we have to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. That is not a question of containment and never has been; it is a question of prevention, outright denial of this ability. That is why President Obama again made that clear in his public comments yesterday, even as he builds pressure for a diplomatic solution. I think it is appropriate to have a President who first seeks a diplomatic solution. I am one of those here in the Senate who, together with a few others of our generation, served in Vietnam--very few--and with one or two, I think, who served in World War II: Senator Inouye, Senator Lautenberg, maybe Senator Cochran. I don't recall if there are still more here. But the fact is that I think anybody who has served in a war first wants leaders who try to find if there is a way to make that war inevitable, if it has to happen, and at least turns over every stone possible to find out if diplomacy can find a solution to a problem. President Obama has reiterated that all of the options are on the table. In its long history, Iran has had many amazing moments and has provided great accomplishments, culturally and in other ways, to its history and to all of us. This regime, many people believe, is something different and some hope might even become something different at some point in time, although it has a long way to go to evidence that. But President Obama has emphasized--in his approach, he has said, ``I don't bluff.'' I am convinced, as I think all of us are, that the President means exactly what he says, that Iran cannot have this weapon. I think you can ask Osama bin Laden what President Obama means when he says that he means what he says. I know we are going to have tough debates going forward. That is appropriate. And we are going to have a bruising election season. That is OK if it is on the up-and-up, if it is really about real differences and real issues. And we ought to have those tough fights. That has proven to be how we decide the big issues in the United States. We always have. But let's have an honest debate, not a contrived one, not a phony set of propositions that have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. The American people deserve more than that. Governor Romney can debate the man in the White House instead of inventing straw men on the op-ed pages of our newspapers. He ought to be armed with facts instead of empty rhetoric. If we are going to succeed, as the American people want us to do in order to avoid a war in Iran, then at some point all of us have to act like statesmen, not candidates. We need to be clear-eyed about what we have accomplished and what we have yet to do. That is precisely what Americans expect from their Commander in Chief, and that is exactly what Americans deserve--no less. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, what is the order now?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 8 minutes on the amendment.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this is obviously a difficult time in our politics--the polarization. It is a difficult time in the Senate, in particular, because over the years this has been a place where we have prided ourselves on really working to find ways to avoid the kind of polarization we see today and actually to find the common denominator on a number of sensitive issues. I think our friend from Maine, Senator Snowe, spoke for many of us this week when she talked about the ``my way or the highway'' approaches to partisan politics that have made it harder for people to work with each other and actually get things done. I would never speak for her, but I think given her diagnosis of what is wrong with the Senate today, she has made a decision not to run for reelection. I think the amendment we are debating today, frankly, is exhibit A. Two years ago many of us voted to end an era where many Americans felt that women in particular but poor people and others also were put into a position of a second-tier status with respect to access to health care in America. There were so many discrepancies. One example, for instance, that was in error before the reform we passed was where Viagra was covered for men, at no cost, by insurance companies but contraception, which 99 percent of American women use, was not covered. So we addressed this issue in the reform we passed, Congress sent it to the President, and the President signed it. The administration then took the time appropriate. Recognizing the difficulty of implementing some of this, they allowed for a time period in order to be able to work through the rules. When they did come out with the first rule, I regret that they came out with a rule that many of us felt--I felt and shared with others in America--a sense that it was not going to work. There was a firestorm in the country over that for a brief period of time. I spoke out in our caucus, and I said I thought there was a better way to try to deal with that that created a balance between the first amendment requirements and the needs of people to be able to have access and be protected. I didn't think it was and I don't think today it is right to force a religiously affiliated institution to pay for contraception if it violates fundamental religious beliefs. I am glad to say that the administration--the White House, which I think perhaps hadn't been able to see all of the implications of what had happened at that point in time--quickly moved to recognize that indeed the rule was not proposed as it ought to be, and they changed it. They responded. That was the right decision. This week, Secretary Sebelius made it clear they are still working with the faith community on a final rule that will address the concerns of my church and of other institutions which are self-insured. But with all due respect to what the Senator from Maine, Senator Collins, said a few minutes ago, Secretary Sebelius said publicly, after the Senate Finance Committee hearing on this subject on the budget, whether it is an insured plan or self-insured plan, the employer who has a religious objection doesn't have to directly offer or pay for contraception. So I take issue. I believe the letter the Senator received actually addresses this question and says they are working with the community, as I believe they ought to, in order to come up with a means of guaranteeing that self-insurance will be protected, as I believe it ought to be protected. But I don't believe we ought to embrace the Blunt amendment as this broad-based opening of Pandora's box that carries with it all kinds of other risks and potential mischief. We don't have to do that in order to protect the self-insured here. I think it is important to work together with patience to try to find a way to do no harm, if you will, to the Constitution or to the rights of women in this country to access health care. I believe in the spirit of the amendment that is in front of us today. I know the Senator from Missouri acts in good faith personally, and I respect that. But language is always important, critical in legislating, and the language is overbroad. If there is one thing I know after 27 years of legislating here, it is that when you are writing legislation, it is critical to understand the implications of the language you use. Precision matters. This amendment opens the potential for overly broad and vague exceptions that could allow children to be denied immunizations. It could allow a company--and a company is quite different from an individual's right to protection under the Constitution--to actually object to mental health services. It could allow for the denial of HIV screenings because people think somehow that is a disease that belongs to a category they object to in terms of social life and structure in America. It would allow, potentially, the objection of maternity care for single mothers because people have an objection to a single mother being pregnant and having a child. There is all kinds of mischief that could be implemented as a consequence of people's assertion of a belief that is not in fact covered under the first amendment but which, as a result of the language in this amendment, could be swept into some claim, and I don't think we should do that. That is not good legislating. That is dangerous. I was interested to hear the minority leader this morning assert some things about the first amendment. I think they are absolutely incorrect. The first amendment is a guarantee that religious liberty will be protected in America and that government will not institute one religion or another or establish a religion for the Nation. It also says no religious view will be imposed on anybody. The Blunt amendment is, in fact, an assault on that protection of the first amendment because it imposes one view on a whole bunch of people who don't share that view or on those who want to choose for themselves. The Affordable Care Act and the President's compromise and the final rule leave all of the existing conscience clause provisions in place-- it doesn't change them at all--while adding additional protection for churches and for religious organizations. The administration's compromise regulation, endorsed by the Catholic Hospital Association and other religious organizations, maintains conscience protections so that any religious employer with objections to coverage of contraceptive services will not be required to provide, refer, or pay for these services. Furthermore, all churches and houses of worship are exempt from the compromise regulation. In fact, as the Women's Law Center pointed out: Under current law, individuals and entities who wish to refuse a role in abortion services are protected by three different federal laws, the Church Amendments (42 U.S.C. Sec. 300a 7), the Coats Amendment (42 U.S.C. Sec. 238n), and the Weldon Amendment, which is attached to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill each year. The health care reform law explicitly said it would not have any effect on these laws, meaning these were the law of the land before the health care reform law and continue to be the law now. So, the Blunt Amendment doesn't ``restore'' these rights because they never went away. What could the Blunt Amendment be about, then? Before the health care reform law, refusals happened all the time, and that was a big part of the problem that the health care reform law was meant to address. People were refused coverage for things like having had a C-section or being a cancer survivor. Insurance plans refused to provide coverage for services, like maternity care or mental health. But to call the refusals that happened before health care reform a ``conscience right'' is a mischaracterization. Refusals were business as usual. They had very little, if anything, to do with an individual's or insurance company's conscience. They had to do with insurance companies refusing coverage for things they didn't find profitable. And by granting a huge loophole with its permission to refuse coverage based on ``moral considerations'' the Blunt Amendment would take us right back there, while hiding under the guise of ``conscience rights.'' I have met with and had conversations with conscientious people in my Church, because it is important to listen to help find answers to these difficult questions. It has left me convinced that we don't have to support a back-door dismantling of health care rights to protect religious liberty. The administration's dialogue with the faith community to reach a final accord that protects patients, including women, and also protects religious liberty is a far better outcome than to have the Senate rush to undercut that effort and pass something that is overly broad, risking dangerous unintended consequences. Mr. President, this amendment would be a mistake--for women, for health care, for millions of Americans who don't want to go back to the days when they could be denied care for any reason. We don't need to drive another wedge in our politics. We need to drive towards that common denominator, that common ground--and that is why this amendment must be defeated. I would simply close by saying the Senate should not rush to undercut the protections already in place and which, ultimately, would undermine the teachings of my church, which argues that social conscience and values ought to be primarily established by caring for our sick, and this would in fact deny that, to some degree.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Willie O'Ree made history on the night of January 18, 1958, but for too long the significance of what he accomplished that night went largely unacknowledged. Every American should know Willie O'Ree for his rightful place in history: he is the Jackie Robinson of hockey--the first player of African heritage to play in the National Hockey League. Unlike Jackie Robinson's widely heralded debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers 11 years earlier, Willie O'Ree's appearance on the ice for the Boston Bruins 54 years ago got little notice in the press. The New York Times simply reported: ``The Boston Bruins, with a Negro, Billy O'Ree, in the line-up for the first time in National Hockey League history, scored once in every period tonight to beat the first-place Montreal Canadiens for the first time in eight games, 3 0.'' Sports Illustrated had even less to say in its Scoreboard column: ``Boston made history by bringing up Quebec's Billy O'Ree, first Negro to play in NHL.'' But it was a milestone for hockey--and a dream come true for the 22- year-old Willie O'Ree, who had spent his boyhood in New Brunswick, Canada--the youngest of 13 children--idolizing such NHL legends as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. He liked baseball, too, landing a tryout with the Milwaukee Braves minor league team in Waycross, GA, in 1956. He even got to meet Jackie Robinson on a trip his baseball team made to New York in 1949. Willie was as good at shortstop as he was at second base. He was good at the plate, too. And with his speed, he stole a lot of bases. But to him, baseball was just a way to stay in shape for hockey. To him, ``there was just something about hockey,'' he always said. He started skating when he was 2 years old and began playing organized hockey when he was 5. He explains his love of hockey in words all of us who share his passion for the game can appreciate. ``When I put a pair of skates on and a hockey stick in my hand and started maneuvering the puck,' he says, ``I just became obsessed with it. I had that burning desire within me.'' That burning desire--that deep ambition--drove Willie O'Ree through almost two minor league seasons with the Quebec Aces before being called up by the Boston Bruins for that historic game in Montreal against the Canadiens in 1958. But after that memorable night, he would play only one more game with Boston before being sent back to the minors for the rest of the season. But in 1960, Willie O'Ree was back with the Bruins for 43 games, including one memorable game at the Boston Garden in which he scored the winning goal in a 3 2 victory over Montreal. It came in the third period. Willie broke away from his check, got a perfect pass from Leo Boivin, stick handled past two Canadiens players, then from 10 feet out fired a shot past goaltender Charlie Hodge. More than 13,000 Bruins fans jumped to their feet and gave Willie a 2-minute standing ovation. That year, Willie had a total of four goals and 10 assists with the Bruins, but that was the end of his NHL career. He spent the next six seasons in the Western Hockey League, then nine more seasons in the Pacific Hockey League until he retired in 1979 at the age of 44. Most seasons were productive despite the fact that at 19 he had suffered an injury that left him blind in his right eye. Doctors said he would never play hockey again. They were wrong. With aggressiveness, fearlessness and speed, he scored nearly 500 goals in his 21 years playing professional hockey. His own impairment was no obstacle to Willie O'Ree. Neither was the blind bigotry of those who filled his mailbox with anonymous death threats, those who screamed racial epithets at him from the stands, those who even tossed black cats out on the ice, even those players who took countless cheap shots at him, in a time when players did not wear helmets or face shields. Willie responded the same way as Jackie Robinson had in 1947 when he broke the color barrier in baseball--with quiet strength and calm dignity. ``I just want to be a hockey player,'' he said, ``and if they couldn't accept that fact, that was their problem, not mine.'' It wasn't until 1974 that another black player, Washington's Mike Marson, made it to the NHL. It is undeniable that Willie O'Ree--his talent and his character--opened the NHL to other minorities. But Willie's ground-breaking days are far from over. For the last 14 years, he has served as the NHL's Director of Youth Development and ambassador for NHL Diversity, part of the NHL Foundation supporting hockey programs for boys and girls throughout North America. He is constantly on the go, running clinics and speaking at schools all across the continent, teaching not only hockey but also how to live life off the ice. He continues to spread the word that ``hockey is for everyone.'' We have recognized and celebrated ambassadors from all over the world. We should also honor Willie O'Ree who is the ultimate ambassador not just for hockey, but for dignity and respect and even courage in the world of sports. The world weathers so many storms and so much uncertainty, but at the center of each we find people of character who revive our hope and give us strength. Willie O'Ree is such a man, and we are all blessed to have his strength as an example.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the conference committee was able to reach agreement to provide critical tax relief for American workers and to extend unemployment benefits for out-of-work Americans. In a letter to conferees earlier this month, I urged the committee to include a permanent repeal of Medicare's sustainable growth rate, SGR, formula and offset the cost with savings from capping a portion of the spending for overseas contingency operations, OCO, below amounts in the Congressional Budget Office, CBO, baseline. Every Medicare expert knows that the SGR formula is irreparably flawed and needs to be repealed. If the conference committee was unable to reach agreement, doctors serving Medicare beneficiaries would face a 27.4-percent cut on March 1. While I am disappointed that conference committee was unable to permanently repeal the SGR, I am grateful that they averted the latest crisis by including a 10-month fix, freezing payments to physicians through the end of the year. However, the latest Medicare physician payment fix comes at a great cost to hospitals, clinical laboratories, and preventive health initiatives. The conference report offsets the cost of the SGR with $9.6 billion in Medicare cuts, $4 billion in Medicaid cuts, and $7.5 billion in cuts from provisions in the Affordable Care Act, ACA. Massachusetts hospitals and skilled nursing facilities will be negatively impacted by the cuts to bad debt payments which reimburse providers for beneficiaries' unpaid coinsurance and deductible amounts after reasonable collection efforts. Because of this provision, Massachusetts hospitals will be cut by approximately $94 million over the next decade. Clinical laboratories in Massachusetts will also bear disproportionate cuts because of offsets in the conference report. They will see their Medicare payments reduced by 2 percent in 2013 and will see additional reductions in the future. There are over 630 medical laboratories in Massachusetts, and I am concerned that these cuts will delay or deny patient access to lifesaving and life-enhancing innovative diagnostic tests. The conference report substantially reduces funding for the Prevention and Public Health Fund created in the Affordable Care Act by $5 billion. Massachusetts supports public health funding solely from grants and has received over $24 million in grants from the prevention fund since enactment of health reform. Cuts to the prevention fund will jeopardize preventive care initiatives throughout the State, including a program by UMass School of Public Health and Health Sciences to provide diabetes care trainings throughout western Massachusetts. I am also disappointed that the conference report will eliminate the extension of funds for section 508 hospitals on April 1, 2012. This will cause approximately $4 to $7 million in annual cuts to Berkshire Medical Center, the only section 508 hospital in Massachusetts. However, I am supporting the conference report because it is imperative for Congress to pass tax relief, extend unemployment protections, and prevent damaging cuts to physicians. The Medicare physician payment fix is particularly important to the Massachusetts economy. One in five workers in Massachusetts is employed in health care. Nearly 15 percent of my State's economy is based on health care. This issue directly impacts 20,000 physicians, their 64,724 employees, and every health care constituency which depends on Medicare, including the 187,000 employees of Massachusetts hospitals. I am concerned about a provision that was included in the conference report that would increase by 2.3 percent retirement contributions for some Federal employees. This provision will reduce pay for Federal workers who have already been faced with a freeze in salary. I look forward to working with my colleagues to permanently repealing the SGR later this year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I want to welcome Pakistan's new Ambassador to the United States, Sherry Rehman. Ambassador Rehman has rightly been described as representing ``the traditional values of Jinnah's Pakistan.'' As a journalist, politician, and diplomat, she has fought tirelessly in defense of tolerance and moderation and has been a leading voice for women's equality and protection of minority rights. The United States-Pakistan relationship has been tested this past year, and while the problems we face are daunting, the basic fact is that stability in Pakistan remains vital to our national security. Ambassador Rehman has arrived in Washington at a time of deep mistrust on both sides. A series of tactical disputes have strained our strategic partnership. Progress on bedrock national interests has stalled, and Pakistan's internal politics seems exceptionally turbulent at this time. Pakistan faces major challenges today, including an economic and fiscal crisis, a growing insurgency within its borders and cities, and chronic energy shortages. There is increasing anxiety in Pakistan about how the war ends in Afghanistan and what implications this will have for regional stability. Many on both sides are questioning the value and meaning of our strategic partnership. The truth is we have a lot of work to do to rebuild a productive relationship. Despite our many frustrations and setbacks, we still have more to gain by finding common ground. Whether it is finding a political solution in Afghanistan, reducing militancy, supporting democracy and civil society, or promoting economic and development reforms, the basic fact is that our interests do converge. The challenge for all of us now is to find ways to act together in common purpose, when and where possible. For instance, on Afghanistan, we need to make our goals and strategy absolutely clear. Pakistan has a constructive role to play in forging a durable political settlement that will bring an end to this war. And while we have often been frustrated by the divergence of policies on Afghanistan, it remains important that we work together to further a reconciliation process that is Afghan led and supported by the region's key players. This is a time for us to be careful, to be thoughtful, and to proceed deliberately but determinately--as I believe we are--to strengthen our relationship and confront our common challenges. Moreover, I want to emphasize that this relationship is not only about the threats we face. It is not only about defeating militant extremists who threaten the security of both our countries. It is also about building a deeper, broader, and long term strategic engagement with the people of Pakistan. As I have said before, Pakistan's prosperity and its security--as well as our own--depend on it. And I am determined to make sure that the kinds of projects supported by Kerry- Lugar-Berman funds remain on track and demonstrate our long term commitment to the stability of Pakistan and to the region itself. Make no mistake: our ability to influence events in Pakistan is limited, and we should be realistic about what we can achieve. But we cannot allow events that might divide us in a small way to distract from the shared interests that unite us in a big way. Mohammad Ali Jinnah said it best in his address to Pakistan's Constituent Assembly in 1947. His words are as relevant in today's context as they were then: If you will work in cooperation, forgetting the past, burying the hatchet, you are bound to succeed. The road ahead will be difficult no doubt. But I look forward to working with Ambassador Rehman as a partner in these efforts in the months and years to come.

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, last Friday Kevin Hagan White, a four-term mayor of Boston, passed away. In the city of Boston, in the shadows of Faneuil Hall, there is a statue of Mayor White that stands 10 feet tall, larger than life. There could not be a more fitting tribute to a mayor and a man who was himself a huge figure in the history of Boston and a mayor who helped to give our city the extraordinary skyline and the extraordinary spirit it has today. He was a mayor who, more importantly, through four terms led the city of Boston through a remarkable transition, from times of division to a time of new international and singular identity for the city. He led the transition of a great city. But this good man and ground-breaking mayor was, frankly, much more than a transitional leader himself. He was a transformative figure in a city that, when it comes to history- making mayors, does not use the word ``transformative'' lightly. Mayor White's passing gives Boston and its people a chance to reflect on how one leader, one politician could help to reshape a major city in America--to some degree reflecting his own persona, bright and energetic. Kevin White was elected to city hall in 1967, a time when big city mayors in America were political forces even as the days of the all-powerful political machines were beginning to dwindle. In Chicago, there was Richard Daley; in New York, John Lindsay; in Los Angeles, Sam Yorty, among some of the big city mayors of our Nation. But in Boston, Kevin represented a new generation of urban leaders. He was only 38 years old and was filled with optimism and energy and clear ideas of what he wanted Boston to be--summarized, perhaps, in the notion of being a world-class city. He attracted brilliant, idealistic young people to help him achieve his goal, brilliant young people such as Barney Frank, Micho Spring, Ann Lewis, Paul Grogan, Fred Salvucci, George Regan, Robert Kiley, Bo Holland, Cecily Nuzzo Foster, Dennis Austin, and Clarence ``Jeep'' Jones, all of whom saw in him a reason to dedicate themselves to public service. When Kevin White moved into city hall, some people assumed they were getting a business-as-usual mayor--Irish and Catholic, typical and traditional. But the times were changing. The political and social climate of Boston in the late 1960s was hardly traditional, and Kevin White was anything but your typical politician. He glided effortlessly between the old world and the new. No one had ever seen a Boston politician go to Rhode Island to get the Rolling Stones released into their personal custody after they were arrested, and then the next night, when they appeared at a concert in Boston, stand up and announce to a cheering crowd, ``The Stones have been busted, but I sprung them.'' Kevin did just that in 1972, which happened to be right after 18-year-olds got the right to vote. Kevin White opened Boston's political system to African Americans, women, Jews, and gay Americans alike. He spearheaded rent control. He decentralized the city government by forming little city halls in the neighborhoods. He made jobs for young people a priority. He organized outdoor summer activities known as ``Summerthing.'' He refused to let Interstate 95 run right through the city in order to protect low-income homes and boost public transportation. But perhaps most importantly, he sparked a downtown renaissance that began with Quincy Market, now one of the city's top tourist attractions, and it became the heartbeat of the new Boston that is his legacy. Mr. President, Kevin White came to city hall with an ambitious plan to build a new Boston brick by brick if he had to, and that is pretty much what he did. When Kevin White took office, Boston was in many ways still stuck in the 1920s--virtually no new buildings in decades, a steady decline in population and jobs, flophouses in the Back Bay, Quincy Market, a ramshackle warehouse of butchers and cheese dealers. But Kevin and his new team at city hall hit Boston like a bolt of lightning, eventually reversing the city's economic slide and laying the groundwork for the vibrant Boston of today. He had a vision. Boston was in Kevin's blood and so was politics. His father and maternal grandfather had been Boston city council presidents, and he married Kathryn Galvin in 1956, the daughter of another city council president. He was elected Massachusetts secretary of state three times before being elected mayor for the first time in 1967. Kevin White was the right man for the job at the right time, as he proved so importantly and so poignantly within months of taking office on April 5, 1968--to be precise, the day after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated. James Brown was scheduled to do a concert at Boston Garden that night. Rather than allow it to be cancelled, as many suggested, Kevin arranged for the concert to be televised live in hopes of minimizing unrest. He even appeared on stage himself to plead for calm. He stood on the stage and said: All of us are here tonight to listen to a great talent. But we are also here to pay tribute to one of the greatest of Americans, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Twenty-four hours ago, Dr. King died for all of us, black and white, so that we may live together in harmony, without violence, and in peace. I'm here to ask for your help. Let's make Dr. King's dream a reality in Boston. No matter what any other community might do, we in Boston will honor Dr. King in peace. That was leadership, and it helped. Cities across the country exploded in violence, but Boston summoned relative restraint. James Brown called Kevin ``a swinging cat.'' Of course, difficult times lay ahead, a turbulent period of racial strife. But Kevin White sought to shepherd Boston through those difficult times, and in the process he ushered in the remarkable city we know today. He did his best to hold the city together by walking the streets, reaching out and fighting with every ounce to get Boston where it is today. At one point, he led a march of 30,000 people to protest racial violence. Kevin White was, according to his most famous campaign slogan, a loner, in love with the city. But this self-proclaimed loner did love Boston, and Boston loved him back. His wide circle of friends and former staff remained loyal and close throughout his life. Above all he was a family man, devoted to his wife Kathryn of 55 years, to his five children, and to his seven grandchildren. To all of them and to the rest of his family, we extend our deepest sympathy and a thank-you for sharing Kevin with us. The devotion of Kevin's family was boundless throughout his long and valiant fight against Alzheimer's disease. From his diagnosis nearly a decade ago to the very end last Friday, they gave him all the love and care he needed to face his debilitating challenge with the same dignity and courage with which he served the city of Boston for so long. Mr. President, Boston is that shining city on a hill that John Winthrop, one of the founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, spoke about in 1630 as he sailed to America. It is a city teeming with people of all kinds, a city of commerce and creativity, a city of grit and greatness. And Kevin White helped to make it that way. I consider it a privilege to have watched his journey, to have enjoyed his friendship, support, and counsel. I join with so many in thanking him and his family for his service. May he rest in peace. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I am voting to pass the conference report for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, NDAA. This is not a perfect piece of legislation. But it contains important hard-fought provisions that I am unwilling to jeopardize or risk denying to the brave men and women defending our Nation, and their families. Specifically, this bill represents the year's last opportunity to pass a 1.6 percent across-the-board pay raise for our men and women in the military. The bill also includes a bipartisan provision Senator Collins and I have been working on for over a year to get passed: an effort to protect victims of sexual assault in the military. As a veteran, I have been deeply troubled by what Senator Collins and our colleague in the House, Representative Tsongas, have heard about the alarming incidences of sexual assault in the military-- which is why we worked so hard through this bill to strengthen support for sexual assault prevention, legal protection for victims of sexual assault, and assistance for victims. There are, however, problems with this bill which still concern me. When the bill was on the floor, I fought for amendments that would have stripped troubling detainee provisions out of the bill entirely. I also voted for other amendments that would have significantly narrowed the scope of the detainee provisions. Unfortunately, notwithstanding my votes, those amendments were not adopted by the Senate. The conferees, with our urging, and with the President's veto threat, made some progress in improving that part of the bill. I commend the conferees for working to address concerns of mine and many other Senators, senior administration officials, and the public over the detention-related provisions in the NDAA. While the provisions in the conference report are an improvement over their counterparts in the bill that the Senate passed last week, we need to continue to examine detention law and policy to ensure that the treatment of detainees is consistent with our national security and with core American values. The progress made in conference on the detention-related provisions is significant enough that I am comfortable voting for the bill, and the White House has lifted its veto threat. Specifically, the conference report includes several changes to the detainee provisions, including a new paragraph that clearly states that nothing in the bill ``shall be construed to affect the existing criminal enforcement and national security authorities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation or any other domestic law enforcement agency,'' provisions that give the President additional discretion over implementation, and a transfer of the waiver authority from the Secretary of Defense to the President. In its totality, these changes led the White House to state that the ``the language does not challenge or constrain the President's ability to collect intelligence, incapacitate dangerous terrorists, and protect the American people, and the President's senior advisors will not recommend a veto.'' Given all this, as well as the fact that the detention-related provisions of the bill have been improved from a civil liberties perspective, and in light of the other urgent priorities contained in the overall bill, I am voting in favor of the conference report.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I was necessarily absent for the vote on the nomination of Morgan Christen, of Alaska, to be U.S. circuit judge for the Ninth Circuit. If I were able to attend today's session, I would have supported the Christen nomination.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year more than 6 million children in the United States are reported as victims of child abuse and neglect. Tragically, at least 1,700 of those children lose their lives--most under the age of four. Maltreatment deaths are preventable and it is our duty to fight for those who are too young to defend and speak for themselves. Currently, the United States does not have a comprehensive strategy for addressing child abuse fatalities. We also lack a national standard for reporting these fatalities, leaving many of these deaths to be largely underreported. That is why today I am introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, which will establish the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities. This commission will be comprised of a variety of professionals with diverse experience and perspectives. They will develop a national strategy for reducing child abuse and neglect fatalities, and provide comprehensive recommendations for all levels of government. They will analyze the effectiveness of existing programs designed to prevent or identify maltreatment deaths and learn more about what works and what doesn't. Child abuse fatalities are not isolated to one part of our country or another. Once the commission completes their, work they will submit a report with their findings to Congress and the report will be publicly available. The loss of just one child to abuse is one child too many. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for working with me on this bipartisan bill to protect our Nation's children. A number of organizations have been integral to the development of the legislation and have endorsed it, including the National Coalition to End Child Abuse Deaths whose members include the National Association of Social Workers, NASW, the National Center for the Review and Prevention of Child Deaths, NCRPCD, National Children's Alliance, NCA, Every Child Matters Education Fund, ECMEF, and the National District Attorney's Association, NDAA. I look forward to our continued progress in developing a more effective approach to improving child welfare and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, each year more than 6 million children in the United States are reported as victims of child abuse and neglect. Tragically, at least 1,700 of those children lose their lives--most under the age of four. Maltreatment deaths are preventable and it is our duty to fight for those who are too young to defend and speak for themselves. Currently, the United States does not have a comprehensive strategy for addressing child abuse fatalities. We also lack a national standard for reporting these fatalities, leaving many of these deaths to be largely underreported. That is why today I am introducing the Protect Our Kids Act, which will establish the Commission to Eliminate Child Abuse and Neglect Fatalities. This commission will be comprised of a variety of professionals with diverse experience and perspectives. They will develop a national strategy for reducing child abuse and neglect fatalities, and provide comprehensive recommendations for all levels of government. They will analyze the effectiveness of existing programs designed to prevent or identify maltreatment deaths and learn more about what works and what doesn't. Child abuse fatalities are not isolated to one part of our country or another. Once the commission completes their, work they will submit a report with their findings to Congress and the report will be publicly available. The loss of just one child to abuse is one child too many. I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Collins, for working with me on this bipartisan bill to protect our Nation's children. A number of organizations have been integral to the development of the legislation and have endorsed it, including the National Coalition to End Child Abuse Deaths whose members include the National Association of Social Workers, NASW, the National Center for the Review and Prevention of Child Deaths, NCRPCD, National Children's Alliance, NCA, Every Child Matters Education Fund, ECMEF, and the National District Attorney's Association, NDAA. I look forward to our continued progress in developing a more effective approach to improving child welfare and ask all of my colleagues to support this important legislation.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, before the clerk calls the roll, that before the Aponte vote there be 2 minutes of debate.

Mr. KERRY. Do we have any time remaining?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I apologize for interrupting my colleague, and I will not for long. I think my colleague wants to speak on the subject of the nominations that are going to be contained within an hour of debate, equally divided. I want to make certain the comments of the Senator are going to be part of that time period. So if I could ask, for my colleague--I believe we are almost at the hour where we have to go to executive session and report the two nominations. I would be happy, then, to yield to my colleague to speak first, if he wishes. Would my colleague agree with that?