Congressional Record, Volume 155 Issue 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)

[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 21, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S681-S693]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

The Economy

Mr. CORKER. Mr. President, I rise to speak as in morning business,
and I thank the chairman for allowing me to do so. If someone comes in
to speak on the subject matter, I will defer.
As is the Senator from California, I am very concerned about our
economy. I know there is going to be a stimulus package forthcoming. I
am very concerned about that. I am afraid what we are doing right now
as a country is addressing the recession--a severe recession--in the
standard way people like to respond to recessions. I think we are
potentially doing that without addressing the real issue, which is the
credit markets in our country.
I know over the last 6 months we have wrestled with ways of dealing
with the credit markets in our country. I wish to tell my colleagues it
is my belief the boards of banks throughout our country are in
boardrooms today and are in conversations throughout the country
talking about the fact that their banks are actually insolvent. They
know they are insolvent, but because of the way gap financing accrues
to banks who make whole loans, they are able to actually meter those
losses out over quarters into the future, knowing that today they are
insolvent.
What we have done through TARP funding is put money through capital
injection into these banks. In their intelligent self-interests they
have hoarded that money because they know they have losses coming in
the future that would cause their banks to be insolvent if they
recognized those losses today.
What concerns me is our country is quickly getting to the point where
our resources are limited more than they have ever been, where we are
borrowing huge amounts of money--and certainly we have been doing that
for some time--and we are getting to a point in time where there is not
a lot of power left for us to solve problems. So what I hope will
happen over this next 30 days as we wrestle with this issue--which is
serious and which is affecting people throughout this country; which is
harming households and people who are just trying to work for a
living--is that we will solve the root cause of this problem, which is
our credit problem.
It is my belief we have trillions of dollars that are going to be
lost in the credit market. Much of that is being driven by housing.
These two issues have to be dealt with together. I fear we are going to
look at a spending package that candidly isn't going to make its way
into the economy until long after many predict this may be over. In the
interim, what we are going to do is create a zombie banking system
where, in essence, banks are just there metering out losses but not
doing the productive things that need to occur.
It is my belief we have a number of banks in this country--large
banks, banks that we know and respect--that need to be seized, that
right now need to get down to a base level where normal investors would
be willing to invest in these banks. The longer we put this off, the
longer we are going to be away from actually solving the root cause of
this problem.
This President is inheriting these problems. I in no way assess these
problems to him. Many Presidents--most Presidents--deal with issues
they had no idea they were going to deal with. I know this President is
looking at a spending package. Candidly, there may be some need for
capital investment in infrastructure. However, if we do not deal with
the root issue--and that is the fact that much of our banking system is
insolvent and recognize that as adults--and cause the assets to be
written down to their real level as we do with derivatives, but we do
not do that on whole loans--we give banks a break, if you will. We let
them meter those out. If we do not deal with that, everything we do
here to deal with our economy, in my opinion, will be for naught. It
will be a total waste.

What concerns me is we are quickly getting to the point again where
we are going to have fewer and fewer resources available to deal with
that. The United Kingdom just recently realized that the policies they
were putting in place were causing their currency to devalue rapidly.
I realize we are not there yet today as a country. I hope what we
will do as a body--and as a country--is tell the American people we
realize many of our financial institutions are insolvent. We realize
the problem could be trillions of dollars, and until that issue is
dealt with in a serious and real way, anything else we do for the
economy is for naught.
It takes a functioning financial system for every small business--for
every barbershop, beauty salon, for every large business--for all of us
to get our payroll checks processed; it takes that

[[Page S686]]

for this economy to function. In order for our financial markets to
stabilize, we have to deal with the issue of housing, which we have not
yet done. It is my hope this body will take up this serious business.
I have to say, in deference to the chairman who has been on the floor
talking about our new Secretary of State, I listened to his comments
today in the Finance Committee and I thought his comments were dead on.
I know he referred to some editorials that were written over the
weekend that said exactly the kinds of things we are talking about
right now. I talk to investors on Wall Street who are involved in these
institutions in major ways. They know they are insolvent. They know we
are just pushing this down the road.
I think we owe this to these young people up front whose last day is
tomorrow. We owe this to Americans across this country who depend upon
us to do mature and adult-like things. We owe this to the country, to
face up to the realities of these major losses, these major
insolvencies, its effect on the economy for years to come, and do
something about that first before we deal with things that will
possibly stimulate the economy if, in fact, we actually had a
functioning financial system. We all know of small businesses all
across this country that are being denied loans. We know of businesses
that are actually doing the right things, but banks are calling letters
of credit and other things because they want the money in so they can
again meter out the losses.
So I thank my colleague for allowing me to speak as in morning
business. I know we have important business at hand. I look forward to
supporting Secretary of State-designate Clinton later today. I thank my
colleague for his courtesy, and I yield the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, the next administration will be faced
with the difficult task of building a smarter U.S. foreign policy that
restores America's image abroad and security at home. Senator Hillary
Clinton's distinguished record and testimony before the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee demonstrate that she is the right person to lead
this effort. Her experience, intelligence and thoughtfulness make her
an excellent choice to be our most senior diplomat and to lead a
stronger and more effective State Department.
I do share some of the concerns that have been expressed about the
potential for a conflict of interest between her work as our incoming
Secretary of State and the Clinton Foundation. I hope that Senator
Clinton will make every effort to avoid even the appearance of such a
conflict of interest, if confirmed.
Senator Clinton brings many strengths to this position, and I am
pleased to support her nomination. It has been a pleasure working with
Senator Clinton as a Senate colleague, and I look forward to working
closely with her in a new capacity.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today I rise in support of the nomination of
our colleague, the junior Senator from New York, Mrs. Hillary Rodham
Clinton, as our next Secretary of State.
It is a position to which I am confident she will be confirmed
shortly--and in which I know she will serve extraordinarily well.
Before I speak about the qualifications that Senator Clinton brings
to this most important position at such a crucial juncture in our
history, I want say a few words about the spirit of openness and
cooperation that she demonstrated throughout the confirmation process.
As a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee for more than a
quarter century--having closely reviewed her nomination--Senator
Clinton and her husband have taken unprecedented steps and gone above
and beyond what we have asked of them. That she has speaks not only to
Senator Clinton's personal integrity, but to her commitment to the
office of Secretary of State.
Senator Clinton will serve during a period crucial to restoring
America's moral authority--making clear to the world our virtue, our
noble intentions and--as we were reminded by our new President, Barack
Obama, yesterday--all that we still represent to so many around the
globe.
As we all know, Senator Clinton has a history of redefining roles and
inspiring people around the world. Certainly, she did when she first
rose to the national stage as First Lady, taking on issues previously
unfamiliar to that position, often in new ways--children's issues,
healthcare, women's rights.
To those who had known her, none of that was surprising. Indeed, long
before she became First Lady or Senator, she had been a tenacious legal
advocate for children and families, fostering hope in a wide cross-
section of the American people. Little wonder, then, that she gained
that following of passionate supporters that we saw on the campaign
trail last year.
For the last 8 years, Senator Clinton has represented the State of
New York and has given her constituents a daring and tenacious advocate
in Washington, putting a special focus on improving her State's
economy--specifically that of upstate New York which is not only hit
harder by recessions but often remains a bystander during times of
economic expansion.
That she so naturally became this kind of advocate speaks volumes
about her affinity for the less fortunate--her beliefs about the nature
of public service and the kind of priorities she will bring as
Secretary of State.
I have said that it also is a testament to President Obama that he
nominated his one-time rival to such a critical post. But perhaps it
says more about the nominee herself--about her commitment to bringing
change to this country.
I have been privileged to serve alongside Senator Clinton. In
assuming the position of Secretary of State, Senator Clinton assumes a
responsibility--that of being our representative to friends and enemies
alike. Her judgment and temperament will be critical to restoring
international relationships which have been so badly tarnished in
recent years.
So, let me join my colleagues in saying thank you to the junior
Senator from New York. I know her tenacity and talent will serve our
country extraordinarily well in the coming years, as it has throughout
her lifetime. I urge my colleagues to confirm her and I wish her the
best of luck.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the
nomination of Hillary Rodham Clinton to serve as Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton is a tireless and fearless public servant.
She is a woman of strength and compassion with a powerful voice.
And I look very much forward to confirming her as our next Secretary
of State.
I have known Hillary for 16 years--since the time when she was First
Lady.
I was delighted to see Hillary Clinton sworn into our small but ever-
growing cadre of female Senators in January 2001, and I have greatly
admired her work here in the Senate.
Senator Clinton has rolled up her sleeves and worked forcefully to
represent the people of New York during the past 8 years.
She worked side-by-side with her Empire State colleagues to shepherd
New Yorkers through the challenges of recovering from the tragedies of
the attacks of September 11.
She has been an active and diligent member of the Senate Armed Forces
Committee, doing her homework and asking the tough questions.
In 2004, she was asked by the Department of Defense to join the
Transformation Advisory Group to the Joint Forces Command--the only
Senator to serve in that capacity.
I know that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave behind a large void
when she leaves the Halls of this Chamber.
But her next role--as Secretary of State--presents tremendous
challenges and opportunities.
The new Obama administration will usher in a new era of American
foreign policy, and help rebuild our image around the world.
Hillary Clinton understands the value, and very great need for, a
foreign policy that is guided by smart, robust diplomacy--rather than
belligerent threats.
She has already visited more than 80 countries, and has formed
important relationships with a number of world leaders.
I am confident that she will ably continue to represent the values
and interests of our great country in the capitals of the world as
Secretary of State.

[[Page S687]]

There is no doubt that the foreign policy challenges we face as a
nation and global community are great: the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, and the great need to transition our forces; a resurgent
Iran; the long-simmering Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which boiled
over in recent weeks with tragic consequences; threats of nuclear
proliferation and terrorism; ongoing instability in Southeast Asia; the
need to confront climate change; the terrible atrocities in Darfur and
the Congo; millions of global citizens who face a grim reality of
hunger, thirst, poverty, and sickness; and the need to improve the
plight of women around the world.
As Hillary remarked during a press conference when her nomination was
formally announced on December 1, 2008:

America cannot solve these crises without the world, and
the world cannot solve them without America.

I am confident that Hillary Clinton will rise to the occasion--and
work hand-in-hand with President Obama and his national security team
to help address these tremendous challenges.
Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today to voice my strong support for
the confirmation of my highly esteemed colleague and good friend,
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, as the next Secretary of State.
When Senator Clinton arrived in the U.S. Senate in 2001, she had very
large shoes to fill--those of the late and admired Senator from New
York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan--but filled them she did and with
tremendous distinction and accolades from both sides of the aisle. And
over time, our colleague was rightly lauded and recognized for her
unwavering work ethic, her expansive and detailed command of the
issues, and her care for her constituents. And in 2007, Senator Clinton
began what would become a historic, Presidential campaign that was an
inspiration to many and especially women. The fact is, throughout her
remarkable trajectory of public service, Hillary Clinton has
encountered immense challenges with intelligence, resilience, and
resolve--traits that will stand our colleague in great stead as our
Nation's 67th Secretary of State.
Indeed, the international environment facing our next chief diplomat
is daunting. The world today is rife with crises that, if inadequately
addressed, could lead to geopolitical instability and human suffering
that spans both the globe and generations. Continuing nuclear programs
in North Korea and Iran threaten the very existence of some of our
closest allies and undermine decades of nonproliferation efforts. A
maelstrom of conflicts as bloody as it is complex stretches across the
heart of Africa, compounding heartbreaking poverty with unspeakable
acts of violence. And inaction on global climate change has stymied a
long-overdue coordinated international response, imperiling every
coastline, crop and country on the planet.
Tackling these desperate problems will be a difficult, and, at times,
thankless job. But if there is a Senator within this body who is equal
to that task, it is certainly Senator Clinton. In her work on the
Senate Committee on Armed Services, she has demonstrated an exhaustive
understanding of the global security environment confronting the United
States and its allies. As a fellow founding member of the Senate
Women's Caucus on Burma and in her tireless support for legislation
urging intensive diplomatic efforts to halt the genocide in Darfur,
Senator Clinton has demonstrated not merely a deep-seated humanity, but
a visceral and personal commitment to speak for the oppressed and fight
for the defenseless.
On a personal note, today's vote is indeed a bittersweet moment--when
we will offer our consent to President of the United States--also a
former colleague, to tap another extraordinary Member to help guide our
country and the free world at a perilous time. Senator Clinton's
counsel and exceptional commitment to public service will be sorely
missed in this august Chamber. Yet we take heart and no small measure
of pride in knowing that her indefatigable intellect is being called
into service beyond these walls to the benefit of not just an
administration, or one country, but an entire community of nations
seeking peace and prosperity for their citizens.
And so, as we look ahead to the future success of our good friend, I
wish her Godspeed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I recognize the Senator from Mississippi
for 1 minute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi is recognized.
Mr. COCHRAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the nomination of
Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State. Her service as the
Senator from New York for the past 8 years has been proof of her
impressive ability to effectively and thoughtfully contribute to the
governance of our Nation. I have enjoyed working with her in the
Senate, and I look forward to continuing that relationship in her role
as Secretary of State.
Our Nation is confronted with serious global challenges, and it is
imperative that we work to develop comprehensive strategies and expand
our diplomatic efforts in search of peace. President Obama has a
tremendous task before him. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan,
stabilizing the Middle East, securing nuclear material from terrorists
are all critical to our own national security. Senator Clinton's
experience as First Lady of the United States, her record in the
Senate, and her commitment to the people of this Nation have
demonstrated her capabilities to lead our Nation's foreign policy and
diplomatic agenda.
I urge the Senate to approve her nomination. I thank the Senator, and
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, who
has been here a long time and is a good judge of these issues and of
character, and we appreciate his comments very much.
Mr. President, we are awaiting Senator Specter, who I understand
wants to speak. So I ask unanimous consent that the time--since there
is more of it now on the other side, without speakers--the time of the
quorum call now be charged to the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Merkley). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished
assistant majority leader, the Senator from Illinois, and I ask
unanimous consent that following his comments the subsequent quorum
call be charged to the other side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I wish to thank the chairman of the
Foreign Relations Committee, and I appreciate this opportunity to say a
few words about the nomination of Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of
State to our new President, Barack Obama.
It has been my good fortune to serve with Senator Clinton for many
years in the Senate, to have known her when she was our First Lady, and
to have worked with her on many issues. There is no question of her
competence, no question of her skill. As someone who supported our
current President in the last Presidential campaign and witnessed the
spirited contest between Senator Clinton and then-Senator Obama, there
is obviously no lack of determination or commitment when it comes to
Senator Clinton and the task that she assumes. So when President Obama
made the decision to ask her to serve as Secretary of State, I felt it
was a decision which would bring to this country a leader who could
make a real difference.
I can recall a telephone conversation where I spoke to her and
reminded her that there were many things she had said as First Lady and
Senator which she would be able to follow through on as Secretary of
State. She was one of the first I heard articulate a premise which I
have come to accept as basic

[[Page S688]]

gospel when it comes to analyzing global issues. Senator Clinton said,
after returning from a trip overseas, she felt you could measure the
likelihood that a country would be able to meet the challenges it faced
economically and socially based on one question, and the question was
very straightforward: How do you treat your women? I have found, as I
have traveled around the world, that standard is valid. If women are
treated like chattel or slaves, if they have no voice in the government
and little voice in the family or the village, most of the time the men
will make a mess of it, and that has been the case. I told her she had
a chance, as Secretary of State, to not only deal with global issues of
peace around the world but also to deal with those issues at the local
level that make a dramatic difference in the lives of poor people.
I also know of her passion for so many other issues that are timely.
When I spoke to her on the floor last week, as she cast her last vote
as a Senator, I wished her well because I felt she would be confirmed
as our next Secretary of State, and she said it is unfortunate that we
come to this moment in history when there are so many things unresolved
in the world, but she looked forward to those moments where she would
be able to meet with the President of the United States and the Vice
President, who has his own resume when it comes to global issues.
A Member on the Republican side has asked for us to consider this
nomination today and to have a little debate and perhaps a vote. I
don't know if it will come to a vote, but other nominations went
through without controversy and without debate yesterday. These are now
men and women going to work immediately for the new administration--no
time wasted--so they can tackle the real timely issues that face
America. One of the issues raised earlier on the Republican side was
former President Bill Clinton's foundation. It was an effort, after he
left the Presidency, to gather the resources to make a difference
around the world in a variety of different challenges, not the least of
which was the global AIDS epidemic.
It is true former President Clinton has been very adept at raising
the funds to help the poorest people in the world, and I think that is
a good thing. But questions were raised: Would that present a conflict
if his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton, became Secretary of State? At
that point, the former President made full disclosure of all
contributions and contributors and made it clear that he would go out
of his way to avoid conflicts and continue this disclosure and
transparency.
I can recall in Senator Kerry's committee Senator Lugar of Indiana
asked questions about this to try to make sure there would be clarity
and transparency. And that is good. We don't want any embarrassment
coming to either former President Clinton or Senator Clinton when she
is Secretary of State and certainly not to the Obama administration.
That kind of disclosure is the way to reach that goal.
So I will be voting for her nomination today with the belief that
Hillary Clinton will bring that skill set and those values to this most
important job for the future of our country. She understands the safety
and security of America begins, of course, with a strong military but,
as President Obama has said, to try to avoid using that military so we
don't engage in unnecessary wars and wars that have no end; to use the
skills of diplomacy to solve the world's problems. I can't think of a
better person to carry that message and that responsibility than
Senator Hillary Clinton, and I am hopeful this afternoon this Senate
will rise quickly to support her nomination, send her down to Foggy
Bottom, where the Department of State is located, so she can begin her
new role in representing the United States around the world.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time, and I yield the
floor.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the
quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment
briefly on the nomination of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of
State. I believe Senator Clinton brings extraordinary talent and an
extraordinary record to this very important position. Her educational
and professional background are sterling. I have a little parochial
pride at the fact that she is a graduate of the Yale Law School and has
carried forward that school's tradition for public service.
I got to know Mrs. Clinton first when she was First Lady. Shortly
after I had brain surgery, in 1993, I bumped into her at the carriage
entrance, coming into the Senate Chamber, and we talked a little bit
about my medical experience. She invited me to visit with her in the
White House, which I did--as I recollect, on the second floor of the
West Wing. I told her of the personal experience I had and also my
ideas from serving on the subcommittee of Labor, Health, Human Services
and Education for the 13 years that I had been in the Senate.
As First Lady, Mrs. Clinton was an activist. The record speaks for
itself on all that she undertook. Then, to maintain candidacy for the
Senate in New York was very courageous, gutsy, reminiscent of Robert
Kennedy leaving the Attorney General's job, going to a State not his
home State to seek election to this body.
In the Senate she has had an extraordinary record. She was very
accomplished here. I had the good fortune to cosponsor a number of
matters with her and to work on other matters with her. We most
notably, perhaps, cosponsored the legislation of our Public Service
Academy; that is, to have an academy such as West Point or Annapolis or
the Air Force Academy, where young people interested in public service
would go for training in those arts.
Then we all know of the phenomenal race she carried on for the
Presidency of the United States, coming as close as she did in the
historic year we just saw, 2008, with the election of an African
American and the ascendancy of a woman into the finals of the
Presidential contest.
When she was talked about for Secretary of State, I thought it was a
10-strike. I did something that was a first for me, that I had never
done before. When I read in the newspaper that she was equivocating as
to whether to take the job, I called her with some unsolicited advice.
I cannot recall having done that before. If somebody asks for advice,
OK, but I called her and urged her to take the job. I urged her to do
so because I thought she was an extraordinary fit for it.
I think of all of the positions available at the moment--there are
some very important positions. I have been delayed coming to the floor
where we were having an executive session of the Judiciary Committee on
the nomination of Attorney General-designate Holder, a very important
position. But no position, aside from the Presidency, is more important
than Secretary of State. Perhaps the Attorney General is close, with
the heavy responsibilities for national security in the fight against
terrorism, the balance with civil liberties, and the very important
questions facing the economy with so many fraud cases looming with
people misrepresenting balance sheets. But Secretary of State poses the
big issues.
I have traveled extensively in my term in the Senate in connection
with my duties on the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations
and the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee, which I held in the
104th Congress. I believe there are tremendous opportunities today for
an activist U.S. policy on the hot spots around the world.
I have visited Syria on many occasions, have gotten to know President
Bashar al Asad and more extensively his father before he died in the
year 2000, President Hafez Asad. I believe that Syria is the key to
peace in the Middle East. There have been very extensive negotiations
there. The parties, Israel and Syria, came very close in 1995 when
Rabin was Prime Minister, on negotiations brokered by then-President
Clinton, and again in the year 2000, when Ehud Barak was Prime
Minister--very close. Turkey, for the last 18 months to 2 years, has
been brokering for a long while behind the scenes, negotiations.

[[Page S689]]

What Syria is looking for is the return of the Golan Heights and only
Israel can decide whether it is in Israel's security interests to give
up the Golan. But it is a very different world today from what it was
in 1967 on the strategic interests and strategic value of the Golan
Heights. If a deal can be struck, I think there is great advantage for
Israel and for the region. I think that would induce Syria to stop aid
to Hamas or funneling aid from Iran to Hamas; stopping them from aiding
Hezbollah; stopping Syria from any activities to destabilize Lebanon.
So an activist policy is a matter of the first magnitude.
With respect to Iran, there again I think dialog has some hope. Can
it solve the problem? I don't know. But I do know the problems with
Iran cannot be solved without dialog.
I asked questions of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates before the Appropriations Committee
on the undertaking of dialog and negotiations. I asked Secretary Rice
how it was realistic to ask Iran to stop enriching uranium as a
precondition of talks when the object of the talks was to get them to
stop enriching uranium. How do you do that? It seems to me a major
failure of U.S. foreign policy for decades has been a lack of civility
and dignity and respect that we damn Yankees--we ugly Americans--don't
accord other people, as a matter of basic dignity and respect.
I have had an opportunity to talk to the last three Iranian
Ambassadors to the United Nations. They are very rational people to
whom you can talk.
Ahmadinejad? A real problem, when he talks about wiping Israel off
the face of the Earth. But he is not going to be President of Iran
forever. I think there are forces besides President Ahmadinejad who
have different views in Iran.
If you take a look at Muammar Qaddafi, there you have an example of
someone who is arguably the world's worst terrorist in history--except,
perhaps, for bin Laden and what al-Qaida has done. But Qaddafi and
Libya blew up Pan Am 103, bombed the Berlin discotheque, killed
Americans--and through negotiations, Qaddafi stopped developing a
nuclear weapon, made reparations to the victims in Pan Am 103 and those
who were victims in the bombing of the Berlin discotheque.
I had an opportunity to visit Muammar Qaddafi, about 30 months ago,
with Congressman Tom Lantos. When you went to see Qaddafi, you would go
to the desert. He lives in a tent and he meets you in plastic chairs.
But you can talk to him and the talking has paid results.
With that success, I think it is an indicator, a precedent for
talking to anybody. Nothing may come of it, but the dialog is an
indispensable first step. We know with the difficulties in North
Korea--and there have been plenty--an agreement was made in the early
1990s. They breached that in 1993. We are back on track there.
But I think it takes bilateral talks. It takes representatives of the
United States to stand up and be willing to talk to other people on an
equal footing, with courtesy, with civility, and with dignity.
In August of 2005, I had a chance to meet President Hugo Chavez of
Venezuela. The relationship between the United States and Venezuela has
been very rocky for what President Chavez has undertaken. At that time
the United States Ambassador was trying to meet with the Venezuelan
Secretary of the Interior over the drug issue, where there were common
interests between the United States and Venezuela. I believe it is
accurate to say that as a result of the conversations which I had with
Chavez, the Ambassador and the Minister of the Interior met.
It was kind of a rocky day because at the same time I had the meeting
with President Chavez, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was in Peru, and
he commented in a condemnatory way about Chavez. Gratuitous insults do
not advance the pace or the cause of dialog. So I would say, even with
President Chavez, we ought to make the effort.
President Obama had some comments about President Chavez on a Sunday
news show last week, which have started some mild fireworks. Chavez,
according to the press, retaliated that he had not thrown the first
stone. It is my hope, even with Chavez, that we can engage in direct,
civil, courteous dialog to see if there are some areas where we can
find common cause.
I know, though, the occasions I have had to talk to Fidel Castro that
there were issues on sea lanes and other air lanes where the United
States could have cooperated on the interdiction of drugs. I have
introduced legislation which passed the Senate on two occasions and was
stymied in the House of Representatives. But I mentioned this as
illustrative of where I think we can go with an activist, engaged
Secretary of State. It is my projection that Senator Clinton, soon to
be Secretary of State Clinton, will undertake those matters.
There is one additional comment I have to make, and that is on the
potential conflict of interest between contributions which were made to
former President Clinton's Foundation and the activities of Secretary
of State Clinton, if, as, and when she is confirmed. I think Senator
Lugar was exactly on target in the comments he made in the Foreign
Relations Committee about what ought to be undertaken.
There has already been a memorandum of agreement that has been
entered into on the subject of some substantial import. There is a
memorandum of understanding which related to this issue which was
signed on December 16 of last year, right after Senator Clinton was in
the running for this position.
It would be my hope that Secretary of State Clinton would rethink
some of the additional requests which Senator Lugar made. I do not
think they are disqualifiers, but I do believe it is a matter of
concern if, for example, some foreign government makes a contribution
to the Clinton Foundation, then there are interests which that foreign
government has, I think we would understand and trust Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton that, in the eyes of many, especially those in
the Arab world, they may be suspicious of what would appear to them to
be a potential conflict of interest.
But I trust Hillary Clinton's good judgment, and I think she will
work through the issues and the memorandum of understanding which was
executed on December 16 of last year, and the additions she has made go
a long way, and it would be my hope that she would rethink what Senator
Lugar has suggested. She is a very ethical person and a wise person. I
think she can undertake to handle this issue satisfactorily.
So for these reasons I am pleased to speak on her behalf, and I think
the temper of this body is to give her an overwhelming vote of
confidence so she can carry out the very important responsibilities of
Secretary of State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Pennsylvania. I
yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Vermont.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator and
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee from Massachusetts. It is
interesting, this is the first day after the inauguration of President
Barack Obama--my ninth inauguration, by far the most impressive--and I
have the great pleasure to speak in support of the confirmation of my
friend and colleague, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to be our next Secretary
of State.
Secretary-designee Clinton's stature, intellect, her experience make
her uniquely qualified to take on this role, a role which comes at a
critical time in our history.
As chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that funds the State
Department and our foreign assistance programs, I look forward to
working closely with her and President Obama as they embark on the
critical task of restoring America's leadership and image abroad.
I appreciate the conversations I have had with both of them in this
regard. Some 8 years ago, President Bush inherited a balanced Federal
budget. We were actually paying down the national debt. We had the
biggest surplus in history. The U.S. economy was strong, and the
country was at peace.
Now, 8 years later, his successor, President Obama, has inherited
from him the largest deficit in our Nation's

[[Page S690]]

history, an economic crisis and unemployment rate unlike any this
country has experienced since the Great Depression, a budget deficit
greater than any nation on Earth has ever had, Osama bin Laden has yet
to be captured, more than 180,000 U.S. troops are fighting wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan, the Middle East peace process is in shambles, the
country is more dependent than ever on foreign oil, and the country's
international reputation has been badly damaged as a result of policies
that were contemptuous of the values of which this Nation was founded.
That is the good news for the new President and the Secretary of State-
designee.
I do not envy President Obama for the multitude of misguided policies
and problems he has inherited, but all the more reason he needs the
best men and women to work with him. Secretary of State-designee
Clinton is going to serve him and the country well as they take on
these challenges.
During the election, I remember saying to President Obama that we
needed him to reintroduce America to the rest of the world. I have, in
conversations with Senator Clinton, told her, what better person to go
around the world than Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State to
reintroduce America and the great core values of this Nation. What
better person to do it than Hillary Clinton?
In her confirmation before the Foreign Relations Committee last week,
she discussed the need to use ``smart power,'' including ``the full
range of tools at our disposal.''
I am glad to see her support for foreign assistance reform. We need
that, and we have learned over the past several years we cannot take
for granted the unwavering allegiance of any country in the world. We
have to work at keeping those relationships. It is not amateur hour,
and I appreciate Secretary-designee Clinton's recognition of the value
and experience of dedicated international affairs public servants and
her plans to support and enhance that capacity.
She is going to become immersed in the immensely difficult problems
that were ignored or badly mishandled by the outgoing administration:
the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Sudan, Mexico, Somalia
and central Africa. All these pose particularly vexing challenges which
she has to confront immediately, and the sooner she is there, the
better.
I will mention a couple of other items. The Federal law prohibiting
U.S. assistance to units of foreign security forces that violate human
rights was first enacted a dozen years ago. The State Department is
still struggling with implementing it, particularly with regard to the
monitoring of military equipment provided to foreign governments.
This law, known as the Leahy amendment, has been applied unevenly
depending on the country, and I urge Secretary-designee Clinton to
review the Leahy amendment to ensure its vigorous and consistent
implementation.
Ten years ago this March, the Convention on the Prohibition of the
Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and
on Their Destruction came into force. Today, there are 156 countries
that have signed this treaty. The most powerful Nation on Earth, the
United States, has not.
The U.S. military has not used the types of antipersonnel landmines
prohibited by the treaty since 1991, and it has no plans to do so. I
would urge her to go back to that.
Mr. President, like President Obama, Secretary-designee Clinton
recognizes the need for strong United States leadership in an
increasingly complex, dangerous, and interdependent world. She
understands that most global and regional problems cannot be solved by
the U.S. alone, that we need to act boldly and change the status quo
when it no longer serves our interests or reflects our values,
strengthen and expand our alliances, help the poorest countries develop
effective and accountable institutions, and pursue policies that
enhance our image abroad.
Today, as we leave the troubled policies of the past 8 years behind
us, the American people should feel fortunate, as I do, that Hillary
Rodham Clinton will be our new Secretary of State.
I commend the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. I will be
joining with him proudly to vote for the confirmation of Hillary Rodham
Clinton to be our next Secretary of State.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Vermont for his
clear summary of the task ahead, and those challenges are enormous.
Indeed, as we all know, I particularly thank him as an old friend. And
as the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, we work in close
partnership, and I am grateful that his values are where they are
because it empowers us to put the muscle, the money, support, and the
implementation of the policies that committee struggles to formulate.
So we really appreciate the relationship. I thank him for his comments
very much.
Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides? We are about to
propound a unanimous consent request. I think we are going to be able
to have a vote around 4 o'clock, hopefully. I want to allow for the
majority leader to get back to make a couple of comments himself. But I
would like to get a sense of the time that remains.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts controls 19
minutes, the Republicans control 27 minutes.
Mr. KERRY. Obviously, we intend to yield back on both sides. I thank
the Chair. I know the distinguished Senator from Maryland has been
waiting patiently. He would like to add a few thoughts. I yield him 4
minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, let me thank our distinguished chairman
for yielding me this time.
My colleagues have talked frequently about how our colleague, Senator
Clinton, is the right person at the right time to be the Secretary of
State. We have talked a great deal about her experience. As First Lady
of this Nation, she traveled frequently around the world. She knows
firsthand the problems that America confronts internationally. With
experience as the Senator for New York, serving on the Armed Services
Committee, she understands the critical role the State Department plays
in our national security. With her service on the Helsinki Commission,
she knows firsthand the importance that the Department of State can
play in human rights issues around the world. For all of those reasons,
she is truly the right person to represent our Nation as Secretary of
State. She is an iconic figure for American values and for hope for
people around the world.
I wanted to comment about how President and Mrs. Clinton have
provided disclosure. It is unprecedented the amount of the financial
information they have opened to the public.
I particularly want to thank our former President, Bill Clinton, for
his humanitarian work. We all know that Government cannot do it alone.
Yet he has been able to deal with the international humanitarian needs
through the use of foundations and getting other people involved. But I
particularly want to thank the former President and the foundation for
which he is responsible for the unprecedented disclosures that they are
making. We will know all the contributors. They have agreed that before
new contributions are made it will be cleared through the Government
ethics bureau to make sure there is not even the appearance of a
conflict. So they are doing good things for our country. The foundation
is doing good things for humanitarian needs. We know that.
The Clintons have taken extraordinary steps to do the right thing for
this country in the disclosure and the work they do. It is now time for
us to do the right thing and confirm Hillary Clinton as the next
Secretary of State for our Nation.
I thank the Chair for yielding me the time. I would yield back the
remainder of my time to the chairman.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow.) The Senator from Massachusetts.
Mr. KERRY. Madam President, for the sake of colleagues I reiterate,
in about 15 minutes, after the majority leader has returned and had a
chance to speak on this nomination, we will proceed to a vote.
It is my understanding--I was going to ask for unanimous consent--
there is

[[Page S691]]

a request by someone on the other side to have a rollcall vote. So
there will be a rollcall vote at that time.
We are going to be making that request in a few minutes. Let me speak
for the couple of minutes we have left to share a couple of quick
thoughts, if I may.
This is the beginning of the 25th year that I have had the privilege
of serving on the Foreign Relations Committee. I have seen the ups and
downs, the waves of opportunities and lost opportunities that we have
lived through in the course of that time, the heady years of the 1980s,
when arms control was the centerpiece of our focus and analysis, and we
were in the middle of the Cold War. The committee contributed
significantly to the dialog at that time about MX missile deployments
and nuclear warheads, tactical, conventional weapons, how to count.
Fundamentally, that was altered through the significant daring of
President Reagan to meet with President Gorbachev in Reykjavik and
negotiate a pretty remarkable reduction in nuclear warheads at that
time. It was against the conventional wisdom, and it is proof of the
opportunities we face today, many of which run against the conventional
wisdom.
I am convinced President Obama and Secretary-to-be Clinton--with the
input and cooperation of the Congress and our committee--stand on the
threshold of a new moment of those kinds of opportunities. If Richard
Nixon had not dared to send his then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
to China to meet with Mao Tse Tung and, indeed, even to cross the
barrier to go to Red China, as we knew it, against the wishes of many
of the people in his own party and the wing of his party which found it
heresy, we would not have opened China and begun a process of that
relationship. There is an opportunity at this moment for an even
greater relationship with China. I don't think we have begun to forge
the kind of cooperative effort that is available to us, if we will
engage on a much more regular and intensive basis and look for the
places of commonality and agreement of interest.
There are many, frankly. Most people who analyze and think about
China come to the conclusion that there is a greater opportunity for a
cooperative, respectful partnership than there ought to be any kind of
fears of hegemony or other kinds of expansive desires on China's part.
Most people interpret the current modernization of China's military as
being a fairly normative modernization process within the scale of
things and not something that should be translated by the United States
or others into a new arms race. I am convinced there is a great deal
more to be achieved with China, provided we are disciplined and
thoughtful about the setting of priorities and that we have a clear set
of priorities.
One thing is clear. In the management of our relationships with China
or with Russia or some other countries, we can't do everything all at
the same time. That is a bit of the way our diplomacy has been managed
over these past years. For instance, even with Russia, if we are more
thoughtful about the missile shield and more thoughtful about NATO
expansion and if we engage in a greater dialog about the mutuality of
interest in those regions, we can avoid significant misinterpretations
and counterreactions that come as a consequence of not talking and not
understanding the motives, intentions of another country.
Even as a child, when I was the son of a foreign service officer, I
always heard people talking around me about how Americans are very good
at seeing the rest of the world through their own lens but not
particularly adept at looking at another country's aspirations, fears,
threats, hopes through their eyes. The more we can foster a foreign
service that is historically, culturally, linguistically, and otherwise
immersed in the full culture of a particular country, the better we
are, frankly, going to do in terms of determining our own foreign
policy future and decisions. President Obama and Hillary Clinton
clearly understand the imperative of changing how we have made some of
those decisions.
When I became a member of the Arms Control Observer Group in the
Senate, something now defunct but something we might wish to think
about enhancing in the context of proliferation issues, one of the
things that always struck me was the degree to which from the time we
used the bomb at Nagasaki and Hiroshima, the only nation that,
incidentally, has ever exploded an atomic weapon against another
people, from that moment forward, almost every weapon transition, with
the exception of two--it was either the long-range bomber and/or the
silent submarine--almost every weapon advancement in the course of the
entire Cold War, we were first in the development of the new, more
technologically advanced weapon, whatever it was. Almost without
exception, our principal opponents at the time, the Soviet Union, came
as quick as they could afterward and met that challenge. So we always
ratcheted up, up until the point that we were at something like 30,000
warheads. Today we are somewhere in the vicinity of 5,000-plus
warheads.
It is my firm belief that in this next year, we have an opportunity
to negotiate an agreement with Russia, where we actually ratchet down
to about 1,000 warheads, which would be the lowest we have had in the
course of that period of time, since the beginning, and still be safe;
in fact, be safer. Because if you have the kinds of controls with
verification, inspection that get you to that level, then you begin to
send a message to the rest of the world that you are serious about
nonproliferation, and you begin to send a message that says to the
world: The United States is taking the lead, and we will live by the
standards we try to foist on other people. Most importantly, we make
the world safer because we reduce the capacity for fissile material to
fall into the wrong hands.
I will continue to press this thousand-warhead concept. My hope is it
will become a centerpiece of the START talks and where we proceed. It
is interesting because, even as we have these now 5,000-plus or so
warheads--and that, incidentally, depends on accounting rules because
we don't count the same weapons all the time--the fact is that China,
according to public estimates, nothing classified but public estimates,
has about 23 warheads. They may ratchet that up because of our lack of
having moved from where we are and other reasons. The fact is, they
have been pretty content to feel secure with 23. Most rational people,
thinking about the use of warheads, understand the implications of
using only a few.
One of the things I learned at nuclear, chemical and biological
warfare school, when I served in the Navy, was the full implication of
just one or two or three weapons. So when you think in terms of
thousands and so forth, in today's world, where the principal conflict
is religious extremism and terrorism associated with it, you have to
put a huge question mark over the theories that continue to spend the
amounts of money that we do and create the kinds of insecurity that we
do as a consequence.
This is a moment of rather remarkable opportunity. I recently was in
Pakistan and Afghanistan, India. India and Pakistan are still engaged
in literally old-fashioned, mostly Cold War, old, bad-habit
confrontation. In fact, both sides know the concept of war would be
absurd, when the real threat to both of them comes internally from
people who are disgruntled and disenfranchised and otherwise seduced
into believing that by adopting one religious ideology or another or
none, that they are somehow advantaging themselves. This is an
opportunity to forge a new relationship across the world, as the
President did yesterday. I thought one of the most important phrases he
uttered in his speech was his outreach, his holding his hand out to the
Muslim world to ask people to come together. One of the things that
most struck me in these last years is the degree to which religious,
fanatical, violent extremists have actually been able to isolate the
United States within that world rather than us being able, together
with modern Islam, to isolate them.
That is one of the things President Obama and this administration
offers us, an opportunity to have a completely different kind of
interfaith, global dialog that begins to empower modern Islam to take
back the legitimacy of their religion. It is my hope and prayer that
will be a centerpiece of this administration's foreign policy.
There is much to do. Obviously, Somalia and East Congo, the trouble
of

[[Page S692]]

Darfur that remains, populations in Egypt and Saudi Arabia and
elsewhere that grow at an astonishing rate so that perhaps 60 percent
of Saudi Arabia and Egypt are under the age of 21, 50 percent under the
age of 18, it is a stunning growth of young people who need a future.
If that future is reduced to madrasas and to the distortion of the
opportunities of life, we all pay a price. Our children in the future
will pay a price. So these choices that President Obama and Secretary
Clinton will face, together with the Congress, are significant.
Then, of course, there is one issue many people don't always think of
as a national security/foreign policy issue. That is global climate
change. I have attended almost every major conference since the Rio
conference of 1992. I remember going down there with then-Senator Al
Gore, and Senator Gore and I and a few others had held the first
hearings on global climate change in 1988. I have watched the
progression of all these years as all the warnings of 1988 have come
true and more. Now our scientists are revising their latest
predictions. Only a year ago, 2 years ago, they were saying we could
sustain 550 parts per million of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Now they have revised that, not just down to 450, but they are
beginning to talk about 350 parts per million as being the acceptable
level.
The latest science, regrettably, shows that Mother Earth is giving us
feedback at a rate that is coming at us faster and in a greater degree
than any of those scientific reports offered. The result is that
challenge grows greater, not smaller. I regret to say we are emitting
greenhouse gases at a rate that is four times faster than it was in the
1990s. We are not doing the job. No other country is either entirely,
but we are the worst because we, regrettably, are 25 percent of the
world's global greenhouse gas emissions. Almost every country I have
talked to in the last years, as we discuss how we are going to deal
with this, looks back at us and says: We are waiting for your
leadership.
I have communicated this to President Obama. He has indicated he
intends to be serious about it. But the latest modeling shows that if
you take every single current proposal of every country in the world
that has a proposal--and that is not many--and you extend the curve out
in the modeling to take all the input of today from the science and
measure it against those current plans, we fall woefully short of what
we need to do in order to meet this challenge. We will see an increase
of somewhere between 600 and 900 parts per million which is
insupportable with respect to life as we know it. We will see a degree
of temperature increase of somewhere from 3.5 to 6 degrees centigrade.
We have seen exactly what that means in terms of the migration of
forests, the destruction of ocean currents, the increase of violent
storms, the destruction of property, the movement of whole populations
who will live with new drought, new water problems, and other issues.
So, Madam President, I think we are running out of time. I am sort of
stalling here waiting for the majority leader.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator's time has expired.
Mr. KERRY. That is what I figured.
Well, on that inauspicious note, I ask unanimous consent that I be
permitted to proceed now until he comes. Then I will put in a quorum
call in a few moments.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. KERRY. To finish that thought, the ice sheets in the Arctic are
melting. We anticipate now, according to the science, we are going to
have an ice-free arctic in the summer in about 10 years. The problem
with that is that as more ice disappears, more water is evident, is
available, and the water, unlike the ice sheet, which acts as a
reflecter for the Sun's rays, acts to absorb the Sun's rays. So the
more the ice melts, the warmer the ocean becomes and the faster it
begins to continue the rest of the melting.
The result is, we begin to change the entire ecosystem in ways that
scientists cannot predict completely, but it has a profound impact on
the ecosystem. Moreover, it adds to the melting of the Greenland ice
sheet. The Greenland ice sheet, unlike the arctic ice sheet, which
floats, and, therefore, does not change the displacement--the Greenland
ice sheet is on rock.
Right now, you can go up there. The Senator from California went up
there last summer with a group. You can stare down a hole 100 feet
deep, and you can see a torrent of a river running down off that ice
into the ocean. Scientists are worried that the water layer underneath
the ice actually creates a potential that a huge block of ice may slide
off and fall into the ocean.
The rest of it continues to melt. The implication of the Greenland
ice sheet melting is that is where you get your 16 to 23 feet of sea
level rise.
Now, all I can tell you is, all of these impacts are irreversible--
irreversible--so we are staring at an abyss of irreversibility. The
best choice for people in positions of high responsibility like us and
public people who make these choices is the whole precautionary
principle. If we are told we can avoid it by doing X, Y, and Z, and the
implications of not avoiding it are disaster, we have a responsibility
to try to avoid it.
Now, we have to do this. It means a fundamental, profound change in
our economy. That means shifting our energy grid, moving toward solar
and renewables. People sort of scratch their heads and say: Well, is
that kind of dreamy, goo-goo, crazy thinking? The answer is no. I had a
venture capitalist in my office last week who wants to build a 600-
megawatt solar powerplant in the Southwest of our country and they
cannot get the financing right now.
So this economic crisis is, in fact, an economic opportunity that
also has profound national security implications because to the degree
we lead in our responsibilities to go to Copenhagen--where we have an
international meeting next December, where we have an opportunity to
fix the Kyoto treaty with a new agreement, which will have a huge
impact on people all across the planet--that is one of the major
challenges before the Obama administration.
I know the President is very committed to trying to move forward on
this issue. But he and Secretary of State Clinton are going to have a
huge challenge to persuade countries to do difficult things, to
persuade Americans to change some of our habits and do difficult
things.
I am told by experts that you could produce six times the electricity
needs of the entire United States of America--six times--from either
concentrated solar photovoltaics or solar thermal in Utah, Colorado,
California, New Mexico, and Arizona, and I think that is the heart of
it. Those approximately six States or so could wind up providing us
with the base from which we could provide that. I am confident the
technology will move forward.
So I wholeheartedly support, as I have said in the committee, and as
I have said earlier in my opening comments, the nominee. I believe
Senator Clinton is in a position to provide a historical shift in
American foreign policy where we reach out to the world with the best
of our values and the best of our thinking and the best of our hopes
and intentions. I think this can be a moment where we renew America's
proud role as a global leader, where we touch the hearts and minds of
people all across the planet, and where we have an opportunity to say
to future generations, we met our responsibility.
Having said that, the distinguished majority leader is here and I
yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I appreciate the leadership of the chair
of our Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Kerry. In the short time he
has assumed the responsibilities of that most important committee, he
has done a remarkably good job, and the best is yet to come. He
mentioned here briefly some of the things he wants to do dealing with
the scourge we find ourselves in with global warming, and it is going
to be remarkable, the work he does.
Madam President, we are moving forward on the vote on the nomination
of Senator Hillary Clinton to be Secretary of State.
Senator Clinton is uniquely capable and profoundly prepared to lead
our

[[Page S693]]

State Department at a time of unprecedented global challenges, and at a
time when quick confirmation of President Obama's national security
team is critical to protect us here at home.
We face two wars abroad, a complex and unpredictable crisis in the
Middle East, the nuclear ambitions of a volatile Iranian regime,
together with the complexities of dealing with North Korea.
Senator Clinton has earned the admiration and respect of the global
community with her understanding that our international power must be
both strong and smart, that the true measure of our influence is not
just the size and strength of our military, but also how we use other
tools, including diplomacy and foreign assistance, to make the world
safer and more free.
Senator Clinton's exemplary qualifications and wise world view were
demonstrated in her confirmation hearings, where she showed a
tremendous breadth and depth of knowledge on the major foreign policy
issues we face in the world today.
We all remember Hillary Clinton's arrival in the Senate a few short
years ago--8 years ago. Some wondered--and some out loud--whether a
former First Lady who had become a favored target of the rightwing
could forge the relationships necessary to be an effective Senator for
the people of New York State. She answered that loud, and she answered
it very clear.
Some questioned whether a person of such national and international
acclaim would put in the time to get to know the inner workings of the
Senate and the nitty-gritty of the legislative process. She answered
that big time.
It took no time for Senator Clinton to make believers from those
doubters. She became an instant favorite of Democrats and Republicans
alike, a forceful advocate for both smart foreign policies and domestic
policies, and a remarkably effective student of bipartisanship.
In her time as First Lady of our country, serving as an American
emissary to the world, and then in the Senate as a member of the Armed
Services Committee, Hillary Clinton built the diplomatic skills and
breadth of knowledge one needs to be our next Secretary of State. She
has the full package.
All but one member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to
approve this outstanding nominee. Democrats and Republicans alike stand
in support of our friend and colleague, Senator Clinton.
I want spread on the Record my appreciation for John McCain coming to
the floor and saying: Let's approve her now. He tried to do that
earlier today.
I ask all my colleagues to join me in sending the world a clear
message that we stand behind President Obama and our new Secretary of
State as they proceed together to the task of rebuilding our foreign
policy to be stronger, smarter, and more able to effectively lead the
world with moral strength once again.
Madam President, first, we yield back all time on both sides.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
now vote on confirmation of the nomination of Senator Clinton to be
Secretary of State, with the remaining provisions of the previous
unanimous consent agreement in effect.
I would also say this: For all the new Senators and those who may
have forgotten, we are starting this vote a little earlier, so we will
be lenient here and not tie down the 15-minute rule. But in the future,
we are going to start this Congress as we ended the last one. We are
going to have 15-minute votes. There will be a 5-minute time period for
people who are late getting here. But at the end of 20 minutes, the
votes are going to be closed. This will be hard on Democrats and hard
on Republicans, but it is a lot harder on everybody waiting around here
for these people to come to vote. So some people are going to miss some
votes, and I am sorry about that, but it is better for the body if we
have votes that end when they are supposed to.
As soon as this matter is completed relating to the confirmation of
Hillary Clinton, we are going to go back to Ledbetter. We would hope
that the Kay Bailey Hutchison amendment in the form of a substitute,
which has been offered, can be debated today and that we can vote on
that this evening.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the majority leader's
request?
The Chair hears none, and it is so ordered.
The question is, Will the Senate advise and consent to the nomination
of Hillary Rodham Clinton, of New York, to be Secretary of State?
Mr. KERRY. I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
(Disturbance in the Visitors' Galleries)
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I would ask that there not be responses from
the gallery. Thank you.
The clerk will continue with the call of the roll.
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New York (Mrs. Clinton)
and the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Kennedy) are necessarily
absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 2, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 6 Ex.]

YEAS--94

Akaka
Alexander
Barrasso
Baucus
Bayh
Begich
Bennett
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brown
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Burris
Byrd
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Corker
Cornyn
Crapo
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Ensign
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagan
Harkin
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Isakson
Johanns
Johnson
Kaufman
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McCaskill
McConnell
Menendez
Merkley
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Risch
Roberts
Rockefeller
Sanders
Schumer
Sessions
Shaheen
Shelby
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Thune
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Voinovich
Warner
Webb
Whitehouse
Wicker
Wyden

NAYS--2

DeMint
Vitter

NOT VOTING--2

Clinton
Kennedy

The nomination was confirmed.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the motion to
reconsider is considered made and laid upon the table.
Under the previous order, the President will immediately be notified
of the Senate's action.

____________________