Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007

Mr. President, in several weeks, the Senate will begin its deliberations on the fiscal year 2008 budget resolution. It is my strong belief that the Senate must pass a budget that will expand the shrinking middle class, that will reduce the enormous and growing gap between the wealthy and the poor, that will keep our promises to our Nation's veterans, that will reduce our recordbreaking national debt and lower the poverty rate. That is what this Senate should be focusing on.

Simply stated, in my opinion, the way for us to move in that direction is to repeal the President's tax breaks that have been given to the wealthiest 1 percent, the people who need it the least and, in addition, for us to take a hard look at the Pentagon, take a hard look at the waste and the fraud and the unnecessary weapons systems that are existing in the Pentagon right now. We don't need weapons systems that were designed to fight the Soviet Union; we need an approach to fight al-Qaida.

I think we can find billions of dollars in savings when we look at the military budget as well. The bill I am introducing today, the National Priorities Act, will in fact accomplish these goals.

A budget is more than a long list of numbers.

A budget is a statement about our values, our priorities, and the time is long overdue for the United States Congress to get its priorities right, to begin to stand up for the middle class and working families of this country, rather than multinational corporations and the wealthiest people who, year after year after year, have so much power over this institution.

Let me do what is too rarely done on the floor of this Senate, and that is take a hard and cold look at the reality facing the American middle class and working families of this country.

As a member of the Budget Committee, every week we have somebody from the President's administration coming before us, and they tell us the economy is doing great; it is marvelous. The people of Vermont and the middle class of this country don't believe it because every single day they are seeing an economy which is forcing them, in many instances, to work longer hours for lower wages, an economy in which they wonder how their kids are going to get decent-paying jobs, an economy which suggests that for the first time in the modern history of our country, our children, if we do not change our direction, could have a lower standard of living than we do.

What the American dream has been about is that our parents worked hard so that we could have a better life than they did, and that is what we want for our kids. But unless we make fundamental changes in the way this economy is working, the likelihood is that our kids, despite a huge increase in worker productivity, despite technology, will have a lower standard of living than we do, and we must not allow that to happen.

Since President Bush has been in office, more than 5 million Americans have slipped into poverty. We are seeing an increase in the rate of poverty in the United States, including 1 million more children. Not only does the United States have the highest rate of poverty of any major country on Earth, we also, shamefully, have the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world.

I know there is a whole lot of talk about moral values on the floors of the Senate and the House. To my mind, having the highest rate of childhood poverty in the industrialized world is not a moral value. It is a disgrace. It is a shame. It is time we in this country paid attention to the children rather than the wealthiest people.

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the childhood poverty rate is nearly 18 percent. Other studies suggest that it might be higher.

Some people say: Well, that's the way it goes. Well, that is not the way it goes among other major countries in the world. In Germany, the childhood poverty rate is 9 percent; in France, it is less than 8 percent; in Sweden, it is less than 7 percent; in Norway, 4.2 percent; in Finland, 3.4 percent. If other countries can have childhood poverty rates of less than 5 percent, so can the United States of America.

Just one example. Our allies in Great Britain made a commitment to end childhood poverty and they have reduced the childhood poverty rate by over 20 percent since 1999. At the same time, child poverty in the United States increased by 12 percent. If we make the commitment, we can do that.

Let's take a look at our health care situation. The costs of health care, as everybody in this country knows, are soaring. The number of people without health insurance has risen to a record high of 46.4 million in the year 2005. That is an increase of almost 7 million more Americans lacking health insurance since President Bush took office.

While the President continues to cut taxes for millionaires and billionaires, the lack of health insurance kills many more Americans each year than September 11 and Katrina combined. In fact, the National Academy of Sciences estimates that 18,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance.

In my view, the United States of America must join the rest of the industrialized world. We must guarantee health care to all of our people as a right of citizenship. While I know some

people say we can't afford to do it, I would argue that at a time when we are spending more than twice as much per capita on health care as any major nation on Earth, we can do that. We can provide quality health care to every man, woman, and child as a right of citizenship without spending a nickel more than we are presently spending. But to do that, we must be honest. We are going to have to take on the insurance companies. We are going to have to take on the drug companies. We are going to have to take on the multinational corporations that benefit out of our health care system and say that when we spend money for health care, it should go to health care not for profiteering.

Health care is not just a human rights issue, it is not just a moral issue, it is an economic issue as well. Small businesses cannot survive if they are forced to pay huge increases in health care premiums each and every year. That is true in the State of Vermont. That is true all over America. More and more small businesses are simply saying: We can't do it; we can't provide health insurance to our workers--which is one of the reasons the number of uninsured is going up.

In addition to the health care crisis, there is an area within health care that I want to focus a lot of attention on, and that is the crisis in dental care. In rural America, in rural Vermont it is becoming very difficult for people to find a dentist. The Surgeon General has reported that tooth decay has become the single most common chronic childhood disease, five times more common than asthma and seven times more common than hay fever.

I will be introducing legislation to address the dental crisis in this country. I do not want to see kids in schools have teeth rotting in their mouths. We can do better than that.

In terms of education, millions of middle-class American families are finding it increasingly difficult to afford the escalating cost of a college education with average tuition and other costs increasing by more than $4,300 at a 4-year public university and over $8,000 at a 4- year private college since 2001.

We all understand that young people are not going to make it into the middle class unless they get a college education. We all understand that our Nation is not going to be economically competitive if our young people do not get the best college education they possibly can. Yet all over our country, middle-class families are saying: How am I going to be able to afford to send my kids to college? And young people are graduating college on average about $20,000 in debt. If they are lower income, they may come out of college $30,000, $40,000 in debt.

If we are serious in what we say about the importance of education, we have to make college education affordable to every family in this country. We don't want to lose the intellectual capital of millions of young people who are sitting there wondering: Can I afford to go to college? Do I want to come out of college deeply in debt?

Last year, 35 million Americans in our country, the richest country in the history of the world, struggled to put food on the table-- struggled to put food on the table. The Agriculture Department recently reported that the number of the poorest, hungriest Americans keeps going up.

What is going on in this great country when more and more of our fellow Americans are going hungry and are struggling to put food on the table? This should not be happening in America. But it is not only hunger, we have an affordable crisis in housing as well. Today millions of working Americans are paying 50 to 60 percent of their limited incomes to put a roof over their heads, and we have families in the United States of America--families--who are sleeping in their cars, children who are sleeping in cars, and we have people, as we all know, who continue to sleep out on the streets of cities and towns all over America.

Last year, there were 1.2 million home foreclosures in this country, an increase of 42 percent since 2005.

When we talk about the needs of the middle class, it is not just affordable housing. The issue of energy is a prominent issue that must be addressed. The cost of energy has risen rapidly. Since President Bush has been in office, oil prices have more than doubled and gasoline prices have gone up by 70 percent since January of 2001, and gas prices are soaring as I speak. In rural States, such as my State of Vermont, such as Minnesota, workers get into their cars, they fill up their gas tanks, and suddenly they are finding that increased cost is coming right out of their paycheck. They are not making much more money. The cost of gas is going up.

In America today, the bottom line is that millions of American workers are working longer hours for lower wages. The median income for working-age families has declined 5 years in a row. Husbands are working long hours, wives are working long hours, kids in high school are working trying to make ends meet, and in many instances people are falling further and further behind.

Today, incredible as it may sound, the personal savings rate in America is below zero, and that has not happened since the Great Depression of the 1930s. In other words, all over this country, working people and people in the middle class are purchasing groceries and other basic necessities with their credit cards and are going, in the process, deeper and deeper in debt.

Over the past 6 years, when we talk about the economy and decent- paying jobs, we should recognize that as a nation, we have lost 3 million manufacturing jobs which often pay people good wages and good benefits. In my own small State of Vermont, we have lost 10,000 manufacturing jobs in the last 6 years, which is 20 percent of the manufacturing jobs in our small State.

The reality is that if somebody loses their manufacturing job and they are lucky enough to find another job, in most cases, that other job will pay substantially lower wages and have worse benefits than the manufacturing job they have lost.

Today, 3 million fewer American workers have pension coverage than when President Bush took office, and half of private sector American workers have no pension coverage whatsoever. I have long been involved in the struggle to make sure that workers have been able to retain the pensions that were promised to them by their employers. But we are seeing more and more workers who have enormous pension anxiety: Is the pension that was promised to me 20 years ago when I began to work in this company going to be there when I need it, when I retire? More and more workers are finding that will not be the case.

One thing we do not often talk about is just how hard the people in our country are working. We kind of forget about that. But the fact is, the people, working people in this country, now work the longest hours of any people in the industrialized world. In my State of Vermont, it is absolutely not uncommon to see people who are working not one job, not two jobs, but on occasion working three jobs trying to cobble together an income, trying to cobble together some health care for their families. People are working 50 hours, 60 hours, 70 hours.

The New York Times reported a while back that the idea of the 2-week paid vacation is becoming something of history. So we have people who are working 51 weeks a year, and there are people working 52 weeks a year. That is what is going on in the middle class and working families of our country.

The reason I raise these issues is that it is terribly important to bring a dose of reality to the floor of the Senate.

When the President tells us the economy is doing great, the truth is that he is right, in one sense. The economy is not doing well for the middle class. It is not doing well for working families. Poverty is increasing. But the President is right when he says the economy is doing well for the wealthiest people in this country. That is true. The rich are getting richer, the middle class is shrinking, and poverty is increasing. That is the reality.

The reality is that the upper 1 percent of the families in America today, that 1 percent has not had it so good since the 1920s. According to Forbes magazine, the collective net worth of the wealthiest 400 Americans increased by $120 billion last year to $1.25 trillion. The 400 wealthiest Americans are worth $1.25 trillion.

Sadly, the United States today--and I know we don't talk about this too much, but it is important to bring it out on the table--the United States

today has, by far, the most unequal distribution of wealth of any major country on Earth and the most unequal distribution of income of any major country on Earth, and that gap between the rich and everybody else is growing wider. Today, the wealthiest 13,000 families in America earn nearly as much income as the bottom 20 million, and the wealthiest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. Let me repeat that: 13,000 families earn almost as much income as the bottom 20 million, and the richest 1 percent own more wealth than the bottom 90 percent. That trend is very dangerous for our country. It suggests we are moving in the direction of an oligarchy, where a small number of people have incredible wealth and, with that wealth, incredible power, at the same time as the vast majority of our people are struggling just to keep their heads above water. We as a nation can do a lot better than that.

According to a December 2006 report by the Congressional Budget Office, the average after-tax income of the wealthiest 1 percent of households rose from $722,000 in 2003 to $868,000 in 2004. After adjusting for inflation, that is a 1-year increase of nearly $146,000, or 20 percent. This represents the largest increase in 15 years measured both in percentage terms and in real dollars.

Now, what does that mean in English? What it means in English is that the wealthiest people in this country are doing phenomenally well, that is what it means, while a lot of other people are struggling very hard to keep their families afloat.

Why have I given this overview of the state of the economy? I have given this overview because I believe we need a budget that begins to address the realities I have just discussed. We need a budget that says to the middle class and working families and low-income Americans: We know you are hurting; we are on your side. At the same time, we need a budget that says to the very wealthiest people in this country: You know what, you are part of America, too. Your incomes are soaring. If you are a CEO of a large corporation, you are making 400 times what the worker in your company is making. You know what, we want you to be part of America, and you have to make some sacrifices so the people in this country don't go hungry and so working-class kids can get a college education. Join America. Don't be separate with your huge incomes.

The President has just, as you know, introduced his budget. He has told us that in his budget, the United States does not have enough money to meet the health care needs of this country. His response is to inadequately fund the Children's Health Insurance Program and to cut Medicare and Medicaid by $280 billion over the next decade.

The President has told us we don't have enough money to take care of our veterans, and we all have seen recently what has been going on at Walter Reed Hospital. The President has said that despite the fact that we have 22,000 wounded in Iraq and that we have veterans on waiting lists all over this country, we just don't have the money to take care of our veterans.

The President has told us we don't have enough money for childcare; we don't have enough money for dental care; we don't have enough money for special education; we don't have enough money to address the crisis in global warming; we don't have enough money to make sure qualified students have access to a quality education without going deeply into debt.

The President has told us we don't have enough money to fully fund Head Start, that we don't have enough money to expand the earned income tax credit.

That is what the President has told us.

The President, in his budget, has also told us something else. The President has said we don't have enough money for the needs of the middle class and working families, but we do have enough money to provide $70 billion in tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent and that we really don't have to take a hard look at the Pentagon and all the waste, the fraud, and the unnecessary weapons systems that are in that institution.

In my view, these upside-down priorities have to be changed, and that is the responsibility of this Senate. The bill I am introducing today will begin to turn our national priorities in a very different direction from that which the President is suggesting.

The National Priorities Act will repeal tax breaks for the wealthiest 1 percent in 2008 and eliminate $60 billion in waste, fraud, and abuse at the Pentagon and use that money to do the following. In other words, what we are doing is we are going to ask our wealthy friends who have received huge tax breaks to start paying a little bit more in taxes. We are going to ask the Pentagon to take a hard look at their huge budget and eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse. We are going to be raising about $130 billion to do that.

Now, let me tell you what we can do with that $130 billion. We can provide health care services for over 4 million Americans by increasing investments in federally qualified health centers and by raising funds substantially for the National Health Service Corps. In my State and all over America, federally qualified health centers are providing cost-effective quality health care to millions of people. By increasing funding and expanding these programs, putting more money into these programs, we can provide high-quality health care, dental care, mental health counseling, and low-cost prescription drugs, and we can do it in a cost-effective way. We can make a serious effort to provide primary health care to every man, woman, and child in this country. That is what we can do.

We can expand access to dental care. By providing $140 million more for workforce, capital, and equipment needed, we can address in a significant way the dental care crisis in this country.

We can provide health insurance to over 8 million children not covered by expanding the CHIP program, Children's Health Insurance Program, by over $15 billion. In my State of Vermont, almost all of our kids have health insurance. The rest of our country should move in that direction. It is not acceptable that children in America do not have health insurance. We can do that through this legislation.

We can address the crisis in terms of inadequate funding in the VA and make sure that all of our veterans get the health care they were promised, the health care they deserve. That is what this budget does.

We also, in this budget, ensure that working families with children have access to affordable childcare by increasing investments in the childcare development block grant by over $2 billion. It is a national outrage that all over this country working families cannot find good, quality affordable childcare. Single moms are going off to work, and they are worried. They worry deeply about the quality of care their children are receiving. It is a major crisis. This legislation provides the funds to address that crisis.

Head Start has been a successful program. This legislation provides the funding to allow every qualified child in America to receive early education, nutrition, and health services by fully funding the Head Start Program.

In my State of Vermont and, again, all over this country, higher and higher property taxes are causing very serious problems for middle- class families, splitting communities apart. This legislation will lower property taxes by keeping the Federal commitment to provide 40 percent of the cost of special education for about 7 million children with disabilities. Mainstreaming kids with disabilities is a good idea. It is the right thing to do. The Federal Government has not kept the promises it has made to school districts all over this country. We have to increase funding substantially for special education, not, as the President wants, cut funding for special education. This bill does that.

This bill provides an additional 330,000 students with Pell grants and increases its purchasing power for over 5.4 million other students by doubling the maximum Pell grant. In other words, we want our young people to be able to go to college. We do not want them to come out in debt. This legislation does that.

This legislation instills low-income high school students with the skills and opportunity they need to go to college by increasing the TRIO and GEAR UP education programs by 50 percent.

This legislation creates more than 200,000 jobs by increasing investments in renewable energy, energy-efficient appliances, public transportation, and

high-speed rail. By making our environment cleaner, by attacking and reversing global warming, we can create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That is what this legislation does.

This legislation addresses the crisis in affordable housing by creating 180,000 jobs in constructing, preserving, and rehabilitating affordable housing rental units.

This legislation reduces taxes by $400 to $1,134 per year for 10 million American workers and families with children by expanding the earned-income tax credit.

This legislation reduces the deficit by $30 billion.

To be very honest, I do not expect this legislation to be passed tomorrow, probably not even the next day. What this legislation is doing, though, is providing the Congress with a blueprint, and it is a very simple blueprint. It says: Which side are you on? It says that when those people who come before us and say: Yes, we understand there is a health care crisis; we just can't afford to do anything about it; we understand there is a childcare crisis, there is a housing crisis, there is a crisis in terms of the affordability of higher education, but we just can't do anything about it. We just don't have the money. What this legislation does is say: Yes, we do have the money. We do have the money if we rescind the tax breaks that go to millionaires and billionaires, if we ask the Pentagon to preserve, to make sure we continue to have all the resources we need for our soldiers and the strongest military in the world but take a hard look at waste, fraud, abuse, and weapons systems we don't need. If you do those two things, we can come up with $130 billion. With that $130 billion, we can address the major problems facing our country, and we can lower our deficit.

I hope that my fellow colleagues will give serious thought to this legislation and that we can move it forward.

Mr. President, I rise today to again raise the issue of Darfur. I may not match the tenacity of former Senator William Proxmire. You see, he came to the Senate floor every day--every day-- for 19 years urging the Senate to ratify the 1948 Convention on Genocide. Finally, Senator

Proxmire prevailed. Finally, the United States became a signatory to this historic international agreement. We were one of the last, but we were on board.

The reason I come to the Chamber today to speak is because having noted the presence of the need for an international agreement on genocide, having acknowledged that a genocide is taking place in Darfur in the Sudan, a simple honest answer is we have done little or nothing about it.

I have tried each week to come to the Chamber to again highlight the situation and to propose what the United States can do. It is worth putting this matter in context. Several times in the history of this world, we have witnessed genocides of horrific proportion. One of the most recently noted tragedies, of course, involved 6 million Jews and others who were killed in the Holocaust in World War II.

When I was a young college student in Washington at Georgetown University, my first year I had an amazing professor whose name was Jan Karski. Karski was born in Poland. He was a member of the Polish underground resisting the Nazis in World War II. He used to come to our classes ramrod straight with military bearing, always dressed impeccably in starched white shirt and tie and would speak to us about government. He would intersperse his lectures with stories of his life.

I was fascinated with Dr. Karski. He told the story as a young man coming to Washington, DC, in the midst of World War II. He came here because he knew what was happening. He knew about the Holocaust, he knew about the concentration camps, and he knew something had to be done. So he came to war-weary Washington and tried to find someone receptive to his message.

He went from office to office, finally securing a meeting with President Roosevelt but never quite convincing the highest level of our Government in those days, trying to tell them, yes, there are concentration camps; yes, innocent people were being killed; yes, there was a Holocaust and something needs to be done.

Dr. Karski told us in these lectures that he left Washington empty- handed and despondent. Unfortunately, he never convinced America to act, and, unfortunately, the Holocaust continued.

I used to puzzle over this and imagine: How could it be? How could the people of a great Nation such as America stand back and not do anything if people were alerting them to the reality of genocide, the killing of innocent people? Sadly, I have come to understand it now because 4 years ago we declared a genocide was taking place in Darfur in Sudan. It was an amazing declaration, it was a courageous declaration by this Bush administration. The President, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have been unsparing in their criticism of the Sudanese Government, and they have used that word, ``genocide.'' But the sad reality is, having made this declaration, we have done nothing-- nothing.

The President said early on he would not allow a genocide to occur on his watch. I have reminded him--and I am sure it is painful to hear-- that his watch is coming to an end and the genocide continues and America continues to do nothing.

Today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut in introducing the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. This bill is designed to support the actions of seven States that have already passed divestment laws and the dozens more that are considering legislation.

The first of these States, I am proud to say, is the home State of this Senator and the Presiding Officer, the State of Illinois. Our friend and your former colleague, Mr. President, Jackie Collins, has led this fight. She is tenacious, and she is great to have on your team.

Over 50 universities and municipalities have also chosen to divest their portfolios of companies that directly or indirectly support the genocidal Sudanese Government. Countless individual Americans have made this same choice. These States, universities, and individuals have said they do not want their pensions or other investments to support a government that is carrying out mass atrocities against its own people.

In this morning's Washington Post, there is a graphic story written by Travis Fox of a visit to a refugee camp at Chad. I know the Presiding Officer has visited the refugee camps in Chad and has seen firsthand what is happening there: 230,000--230,000--Darfur refugees have streamed across the border and live in 12 United Nations- administered camps.

This heartbreaking story shows an emaciated young boy being fed by his mother. It goes on to say that so many of these children are dying of malnutrition, even in the refugee camps. They are trying to get this poor little boy to eat some food, which he thinks is horrible and spits out. He would rather go hungry than eat what he is being given.

These children are dying in these refugee camps and, sadly, more people are streaming to these camps because of the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

As many as 450,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch, have died from disease and violence in this genocide; 2.5 million people have been displaced since the fighting began. The United Nations reports that in the second half of the year 2006, 12 humanitarian workers were killed and 38 compounds were attacked.

This morning's paper also includes a report that members of the African Union and the peacekeepers who are valiantly trying to bring peace to this area are now being killed as well. Mr. President, 7,000 members of the African Union are there; 7,000 troops are policing an area as large as the State of Texas. Imagine, if you will, trying to contain the violence of a militia who is hellbent on killing innocent people, raping and pillaging with 7,000 soldiers. Even the best soldiers couldn't rise to that challenge. That is why America must rise to this challenge.

As I mentioned, divestment is one tool. It is not what I would prefer, but it is a move in the right direction. Our bill recognizes that divestment should be undertaken only in rare circumstances, but declarations of genocide by both the President and the Congress provide all the justification needed for these State and local efforts which our bill will support.

This bipartisan bill affirms it is the sense of Congress that States and other entities should be permitted to provide for the divestment of assets as an expression of opposition to the genocide and policies of the Khartoum Government.

It also expresses the sense of Congress that such State divestment laws are consistent with our Constitution and that, for example, they do not run afoul of the foreign commerce clause of the Federal foreign affairs power. The bill recognizes that nongovernmental organizations working in Sudan on humanitarian efforts or companies that are operating under Federal permit or to promote health or religious activities, for example, should not be classified as supporting the Sudanese Government.

We do not want to hinder the fine work that is being done by nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian organizations. What we want to do is put pressure on this Government in Khartoum to change this deadly policy which they have followed now for years.

This is a targeted bill. It is aimed at supporting State and local efforts in America to do the right thing.

Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, last fall I sent a letter to every Governor in the country whose State had not divested urging them to do so. I sent a similar letter to every university president in my State making the same request. I am proud to say that Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, and its president, Henry Bienen, had already quietly taken steps to divest of major companies operating in Sudan. President Bienen has been to Sudan. He has had a life experience there. He understands this on a personal basis. I met with him. I applaud him for his leadership.

Sadly, some universities have said no. Incredibly, they have said no. One university president of a major university in Illinois called me to explain why they could not bring themselves to divest of their investments in Sudan where this genocide is taking place. He gave a long, tortured explanation

about university policy. I asked him one question: Do you believe there is a genocide taking place in Darfur? There was a long silence. Then he said: Well, I guess I don't know. I said: Until you can answer that question, you shouldn't make this decision. Others have looked at the facts, and they have decided that genocide is taking place. I ask you: If you come to that same conclusion that a genocide is taking place, my next question is very simple and straightforward: What are you going to do about it?

I believe we have a moral responsibility. It goes beyond any political debate and any partisanship. I am glad the cosponsors of this legislation, which I am now putting before the Senate, are bipartisan in nature.

When I sent out these letters, incidentally, I had a wake-up call personally. A reporter called and said: So you are all for divestment, are you, Senator Durbin? Oh, yes, I am committed to it. Guess what, Senator. We went through the handful of mutual funds you and your wife own and one has investments in Sudan. I was stunned. I said: I will sell immediately, which I did. It wasn't very painful to my portfolio, but I felt a little better when it was done.

It doesn't take much, but it is a reminder that change begins at home. Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped create and serve as the first chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission once posed that famous question:

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?

She answered:

Human rights begin in small places, close to home--so close

and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the

world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the

neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends;

the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the

places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice,

equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.

Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little

meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold

them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the

larger world.

That statement embodies the spirit that drives the divestment movement.

The Darfur movement in this country was born on college campuses with idealistic youth, but it has now spread across the Nation. The effort to divest is a struggle that students are continuing to have with the administrators in my home State and across the country.

These students are carrying on a legacy, a legacy of those students who came before them, who led the movement to divest from South Africa in order to starve apartheid, the rank discrimination and bigotry of our time in the great country of South Africa.

South Africa changed because of the courage and capabilities of people such as Nelson Mandela, who led one of the most remarkable revolutions of my time. Change will come in Sudan when Sudanese leaders are convinced or compelled to change. But the divestment movement helped to drive the process in South Africa, and it can help drive the process in Sudan today.

This bill is only a start, but it isn't the end of the discussion. Divestment is a useful tool but just that--only one tool among many we should be considering.

Yesterday, the Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, met with President Bashir in Khartoum. The press reported that it was a 20- minute meeting. I don't know how productive it was. It wasn't the first time they have met and, sadly, all the previous times have not led to any decision by the Khartoum Government to bring the militia under control, which is wreaking havoc and causing this genocide which is killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Special Envoy Natsios has talked about what now has publicly been disclosed and described as Plan B. The biggest export of Sudan, no surprise, is oil. How is the oil exported? Through different companies--including companies owned by the Chinese, India, and Malaysia. Special Envoy Natsios told us that if the Sudanese Government did not respond by allowing U.N. peacekeepers to come in and protect these innocent people living in their villages by January 1 of this year, he would encourage the administration to move on Plan B, which calls for economic sanctions against the oil transactions coming out of Sudan.

January 1 has come and gone. According to the press reports, the President has ordered the Treasury Department to prepare a menu of options that would directly affect the Khartoum Government. I believe the President should use this list of options to enact additional meaningful sanctions immediately.

I have spoken to the President twice personally. I have spoken to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I have tried to raise my voice on every occasion to urge them to do something and do it now. People are dying, people are starving to death. This genocide continues on our watch, America.

Today's sanctions program is based on Executive orders signed by President Clinton in 1997 and President Bush in 2006 and on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and a host of other laws that provide additional mechanisms. The menu of options is there.

Sudan produces 500,000 barrels of oil a year, 40 percent of which is exported. We can find a way to stop the revenue stream leaving Sudan and the money coming back into that country. I hope that is on the menu being presented to the Government.

New laws are not required for the President to enact these sanctions. He doesn't have to wait on Congress or a long debate. He has the power. It might, however, speed action along if Congress passed legislation to encourage him.

This week, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Imagine that, the United States each year boldly announces a report card on the rest of the world and how well they are doing in the area of human rights. Let me read a portion of that report on Sudan, a report from our own State Department, and I quote:

While all sides in Darfur violated international human

rights and humanitarian law, the government and the Janjaweed

militia continue to bear responsibility for genocide that

occurred in Darfur. During the year the government, Arab

militia forces, and Darfur rebel groups reportedly killed

several thousand civilians.

By year's end, there were more than 2 million internally

displaced persons in Darfur, and another 234,000 that fled

into Chad, a neighboring country, where the U.N. High

Commissioner for Refugees coordinated a massive refugees

relief effort. According to the United Nations, more than

200,000 persons have died since 2003 as a result of the

violence and forced displacement. The government continues to

support the largely Arab nomad Janjaweed militia, which

terrorized and killed civilians, raped women, and burned and

pillaged the region.

During the year, the government resumed aerial bombardment

of civilian targets, including homes, schools, and markets.

There were no reports that the government of Sudan prosecuted

or otherwise penalized attacking militias or made efforts to

protect civilian victims from attacks. Government forces

provided logistic and transportation support, weapons, and

ammunition to progovernment militias throughout the country.

That is the report of our Government about ongoing genocide to which we have not responded.

The report goes on to detail attacks by helicopter gunships and bombers as well as ground assaults by both Janjaweed militia and uniformed soldiers. It also describes widespread and systemic sexual violence against women and children, often carried out by men in uniform. Some women who reported these rapes to the Sudanese police were then arrested for reporting them. During this year of violence, the Sudanese Government conducted only one single successful prosecution of a rapist, a man who was convicted of assaulting an 11- year-old girl. It is unclear how many violations have been prosecuted.

The report from the State Department also describes how the Sudanese Government systematically restricts humanitarian access to Darfur. The Government denies and delays visas and harasses and arrests humanitarian workers. This is all part of an effort to cut off the food and medicine humanitarian groups are bringing into Darfur.

The mere presence of international aid workers helps safeguard people in the camps as well. That is one more reason Khartoum tries to keep them out. Rebel groups add to the violence by attacking humanitarian workers as well, stealing their vehicles and supplies. According to the report, both the rebel groups and the government-supported militias use child soldiers to help fight their battles.

The State Department's Human Rights Report is just the latest testament to the atrocities that continue to unfold in Darfur.

Mr. President, it is time the world brought these crimes against humanity to a halt. We do that by taking steps that we can in the United States--starting with supporting divestment and imposing tougher sanctions, and we should go to the United Nations and demand a vote. We have been told over and over again that if we ask the United Nations to get involved, it is likely that one country on the Security Council-- and many point to China--will veto that request. Well, so be it. Let us have this vote, let us be on the record, let us say that in the midst of genocide, we forced the issue to a vote and the United States voted on the side of compassion and humanity. Let those countries threatening a veto explain their position.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Specter, and Senator Lieberman for joining me in this step we take today to support State and local divestment. Many people wonder what one or two Senators can accomplish. We are fortunate in the State of Illinois to have a legacy of some great people who have served in the Senate, from both political parties. The Presiding Officer and I were fortunate to count as a friend a former U.S. Senator, the late Paul Simon.

In 1994, when the Rwanda genocide was unfolding, Paul Simon saw it, and he went to Jim Jeffords, a Republican Senator from Vermont, and he said: We have to do something; innocent people are being hacked to death in Rwanda. He and Senator Jeffords then called Romeo Dallaire, the U.N. Peacekeeping General in Rwanda at the time in 1994, and they asked: What will it take to stop the killing? He said: It will take 5,000 equipped soldiers, and I can stop this massacre--only 5,000. So Senator Simon and Senator Jeffords called down to the Clinton White House and said: We need to talk to somebody about getting 5,000 soldiers in to stop a massacre. Their call went unheeded. There was no response. President Clinton now apologizes today, saying it was one of the worst foreign policy decisions of his administration. I respect his honesty and candor, but the fact is, no soldiers were sent.

Recently, a little over a year ago, I visited Rwanda for the first time. I went to Hotel Rwanda, made famous by the movie, Hotel des Mille Collines, where a brave little hotel manager played the role of Oscar Schindler in his time. He started harboring people who otherwise would have been killed in the streets of Kigali, Rwanda. It was harrowing to walk through the hotel and imagine what life was like; to know that 11 years before, people huddled, afraid they were about to be pulled out and killed in the streets. You would look down at this beautiful, crystal-clear swimming pool and realize it was the water in that pool that sustained them during that period.

I went down the hill from that hotel to a red brick Catholic church, known as Ste. Famille. I looked inside during the early morning, and I went back to the hotel. Someone in the hotel said: That is a famous church. A thousand people sought asylum as refugees in that church but, unfortunately, the doors were opened and a thousand people were hacked to death in that church.

That is the reality of genocide. It is the reality of Rwanda, and it is the reality of Darfur. It is a reality we cannot ignore. We have the power. The question is, Do we have the will?

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to again raise the issue of Darfur. I may not match the tenacity of former Senator William Proxmire. You see, he came to the Senate floor every day--every day-- for 19 years urging the Senate to ratify the 1948 Convention on Genocide. Finally, Senator

Proxmire prevailed. Finally, the United States became a signatory to this historic international agreement. We were one of the last, but we were on board.

The reason I come to the Chamber today to speak is because having noted the presence of the need for an international agreement on genocide, having acknowledged that a genocide is taking place in Darfur in the Sudan, a simple honest answer is we have done little or nothing about it.

I have tried each week to come to the Chamber to again highlight the situation and to propose what the United States can do. It is worth putting this matter in context. Several times in the history of this world, we have witnessed genocides of horrific proportion. One of the most recently noted tragedies, of course, involved 6 million Jews and others who were killed in the Holocaust in World War II.

When I was a young college student in Washington at Georgetown University, my first year I had an amazing professor whose name was Jan Karski. Karski was born in Poland. He was a member of the Polish underground resisting the Nazis in World War II. He used to come to our classes ramrod straight with military bearing, always dressed impeccably in starched white shirt and tie and would speak to us about government. He would intersperse his lectures with stories of his life.

I was fascinated with Dr. Karski. He told the story as a young man coming to Washington, DC, in the midst of World War II. He came here because he knew what was happening. He knew about the Holocaust, he knew about the concentration camps, and he knew something had to be done. So he came to war-weary Washington and tried to find someone receptive to his message.

He went from office to office, finally securing a meeting with President Roosevelt but never quite convincing the highest level of our Government in those days, trying to tell them, yes, there are concentration camps; yes, innocent people were being killed; yes, there was a Holocaust and something needs to be done.

Dr. Karski told us in these lectures that he left Washington empty- handed and despondent. Unfortunately, he never convinced America to act, and, unfortunately, the Holocaust continued.

I used to puzzle over this and imagine: How could it be? How could the people of a great Nation such as America stand back and not do anything if people were alerting them to the reality of genocide, the killing of innocent people? Sadly, I have come to understand it now because 4 years ago we declared a genocide was taking place in Darfur in Sudan. It was an amazing declaration, it was a courageous declaration by this Bush administration. The President, along with Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have been unsparing in their criticism of the Sudanese Government, and they have used that word, ``genocide.'' But the sad reality is, having made this declaration, we have done nothing-- nothing.

The President said early on he would not allow a genocide to occur on his watch. I have reminded him--and I am sure it is painful to hear-- that his watch is coming to an end and the genocide continues and America continues to do nothing.

Today I am joined by my colleagues, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, Senator Specter of Pennsylvania, and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut in introducing the Sudan Divestment Authorization Act of 2007. This bill is designed to support the actions of seven States that have already passed divestment laws and the dozens more that are considering legislation.

The first of these States, I am proud to say, is the home State of this Senator and the Presiding Officer, the State of Illinois. Our friend and your former colleague, Mr. President, Jackie Collins, has led this fight. She is tenacious, and she is great to have on your team.

Over 50 universities and municipalities have also chosen to divest their portfolios of companies that directly or indirectly support the genocidal Sudanese Government. Countless individual Americans have made this same choice. These States, universities, and individuals have said they do not want their pensions or other investments to support a government that is carrying out mass atrocities against its own people.

In this morning's Washington Post, there is a graphic story written by Travis Fox of a visit to a refugee camp at Chad. I know the Presiding Officer has visited the refugee camps in Chad and has seen firsthand what is happening there: 230,000--230,000--Darfur refugees have streamed across the border and live in 12 United Nations- administered camps.

This heartbreaking story shows an emaciated young boy being fed by his mother. It goes on to say that so many of these children are dying of malnutrition, even in the refugee camps. They are trying to get this poor little boy to eat some food, which he thinks is horrible and spits out. He would rather go hungry than eat what he is being given.

These children are dying in these refugee camps and, sadly, more people are streaming to these camps because of the ongoing genocide in Darfur.

As many as 450,000 people, according to Human Rights Watch, have died from disease and violence in this genocide; 2.5 million people have been displaced since the fighting began. The United Nations reports that in the second half of the year 2006, 12 humanitarian workers were killed and 38 compounds were attacked.

This morning's paper also includes a report that members of the African Union and the peacekeepers who are valiantly trying to bring peace to this area are now being killed as well. Mr. President, 7,000 members of the African Union are there; 7,000 troops are policing an area as large as the State of Texas. Imagine, if you will, trying to contain the violence of a militia who is hellbent on killing innocent people, raping and pillaging with 7,000 soldiers. Even the best soldiers couldn't rise to that challenge. That is why America must rise to this challenge.

As I mentioned, divestment is one tool. It is not what I would prefer, but it is a move in the right direction. Our bill recognizes that divestment should be undertaken only in rare circumstances, but declarations of genocide by both the President and the Congress provide all the justification needed for these State and local efforts which our bill will support.

This bipartisan bill affirms it is the sense of Congress that States and other entities should be permitted to provide for the divestment of assets as an expression of opposition to the genocide and policies of the Khartoum Government.

It also expresses the sense of Congress that such State divestment laws are consistent with our Constitution and that, for example, they do not run afoul of the foreign commerce clause of the Federal foreign affairs power. The bill recognizes that nongovernmental organizations working in Sudan on humanitarian efforts or companies that are operating under Federal permit or to promote health or religious activities, for example, should not be classified as supporting the Sudanese Government.

We do not want to hinder the fine work that is being done by nongovernmental organizations, humanitarian organizations. What we want to do is put pressure on this Government in Khartoum to change this deadly policy which they have followed now for years.

This is a targeted bill. It is aimed at supporting State and local efforts in America to do the right thing.

Along with my colleague, Senator Brownback, last fall I sent a letter to every Governor in the country whose State had not divested urging them to do so. I sent a similar letter to every university president in my State making the same request. I am proud to say that Northwestern University in Evanston, IL, and its president, Henry Bienen, had already quietly taken steps to divest of major companies operating in Sudan. President Bienen has been to Sudan. He has had a life experience there. He understands this on a personal basis. I met with him. I applaud him for his leadership.

Sadly, some universities have said no. Incredibly, they have said no. One university president of a major university in Illinois called me to explain why they could not bring themselves to divest of their investments in Sudan where this genocide is taking place. He gave a long, tortured explanation

about university policy. I asked him one question: Do you believe there is a genocide taking place in Darfur? There was a long silence. Then he said: Well, I guess I don't know. I said: Until you can answer that question, you shouldn't make this decision. Others have looked at the facts, and they have decided that genocide is taking place. I ask you: If you come to that same conclusion that a genocide is taking place, my next question is very simple and straightforward: What are you going to do about it?

I believe we have a moral responsibility. It goes beyond any political debate and any partisanship. I am glad the cosponsors of this legislation, which I am now putting before the Senate, are bipartisan in nature.

When I sent out these letters, incidentally, I had a wake-up call personally. A reporter called and said: So you are all for divestment, are you, Senator Durbin? Oh, yes, I am committed to it. Guess what, Senator. We went through the handful of mutual funds you and your wife own and one has investments in Sudan. I was stunned. I said: I will sell immediately, which I did. It wasn't very painful to my portfolio, but I felt a little better when it was done.

It doesn't take much, but it is a reminder that change begins at home. Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped create and serve as the first chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission once posed that famous question:

Where, after all, do universal human rights begin?

She answered:

Human rights begin in small places, close to home--so close

and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the

world. Yet they are the world of the individual person; the

neighborhood he lives in; the school or college he attends;

the factory, farm, or office where he works. Such are the

places where every man, woman, and child seeks equal justice,

equal opportunity, equal dignity without discrimination.

Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little

meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold

them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the

larger world.

That statement embodies the spirit that drives the divestment movement.

The Darfur movement in this country was born on college campuses with idealistic youth, but it has now spread across the Nation. The effort to divest is a struggle that students are continuing to have with the administrators in my home State and across the country.

These students are carrying on a legacy, a legacy of those students who came before them, who led the movement to divest from South Africa in order to starve apartheid, the rank discrimination and bigotry of our time in the great country of South Africa.

South Africa changed because of the courage and capabilities of people such as Nelson Mandela, who led one of the most remarkable revolutions of my time. Change will come in Sudan when Sudanese leaders are convinced or compelled to change. But the divestment movement helped to drive the process in South Africa, and it can help drive the process in Sudan today.

This bill is only a start, but it isn't the end of the discussion. Divestment is a useful tool but just that--only one tool among many we should be considering.

Yesterday, the Special Envoy to Sudan, Andrew Natsios, met with President Bashir in Khartoum. The press reported that it was a 20- minute meeting. I don't know how productive it was. It wasn't the first time they have met and, sadly, all the previous times have not led to any decision by the Khartoum Government to bring the militia under control, which is wreaking havoc and causing this genocide which is killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Special Envoy Natsios has talked about what now has publicly been disclosed and described as Plan B. The biggest export of Sudan, no surprise, is oil. How is the oil exported? Through different companies--including companies owned by the Chinese, India, and Malaysia. Special Envoy Natsios told us that if the Sudanese Government did not respond by allowing U.N. peacekeepers to come in and protect these innocent people living in their villages by January 1 of this year, he would encourage the administration to move on Plan B, which calls for economic sanctions against the oil transactions coming out of Sudan.

January 1 has come and gone. According to the press reports, the President has ordered the Treasury Department to prepare a menu of options that would directly affect the Khartoum Government. I believe the President should use this list of options to enact additional meaningful sanctions immediately.

I have spoken to the President twice personally. I have spoken to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. I have tried to raise my voice on every occasion to urge them to do something and do it now. People are dying, people are starving to death. This genocide continues on our watch, America.

Today's sanctions program is based on Executive orders signed by President Clinton in 1997 and President Bush in 2006 and on the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act and a host of other laws that provide additional mechanisms. The menu of options is there.

Sudan produces 500,000 barrels of oil a year, 40 percent of which is exported. We can find a way to stop the revenue stream leaving Sudan and the money coming back into that country. I hope that is on the menu being presented to the Government.

New laws are not required for the President to enact these sanctions. He doesn't have to wait on Congress or a long debate. He has the power. It might, however, speed action along if Congress passed legislation to encourage him.

This week, the State Department released its annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Imagine that, the United States each year boldly announces a report card on the rest of the world and how well they are doing in the area of human rights. Let me read a portion of that report on Sudan, a report from our own State Department, and I quote:

While all sides in Darfur violated international human

rights and humanitarian law, the government and the Janjaweed

militia continue to bear responsibility for genocide that

occurred in Darfur. During the year the government, Arab

militia forces, and Darfur rebel groups reportedly killed

several thousand civilians.

By year's end, there were more than 2 million internally

displaced persons in Darfur, and another 234,000 that fled

into Chad, a neighboring country, where the U.N. High

Commissioner for Refugees coordinated a massive refugees

relief effort. According to the United Nations, more than

200,000 persons have died since 2003 as a result of the

violence and forced displacement. The government continues to

support the largely Arab nomad Janjaweed militia, which

terrorized and killed civilians, raped women, and burned and

pillaged the region.

During the year, the government resumed aerial bombardment

of civilian targets, including homes, schools, and markets.

There were no reports that the government of Sudan prosecuted

or otherwise penalized attacking militias or made efforts to

protect civilian victims from attacks. Government forces

provided logistic and transportation support, weapons, and

ammunition to progovernment militias throughout the country.

That is the report of our Government about ongoing genocide to which we have not responded.

The report goes on to detail attacks by helicopter gunships and bombers as well as ground assaults by both Janjaweed militia and uniformed soldiers. It also describes widespread and systemic sexual violence against women and children, often carried out by men in uniform. Some women who reported these rapes to the Sudanese police were then arrested for reporting them. During this year of violence, the Sudanese Government conducted only one single successful prosecution of a rapist, a man who was convicted of assaulting an 11- year-old girl. It is unclear how many violations have been prosecuted.

The report from the State Department also describes how the Sudanese Government systematically restricts humanitarian access to Darfur. The Government denies and delays visas and harasses and arrests humanitarian workers. This is all part of an effort to cut off the food and medicine humanitarian groups are bringing into Darfur.

The mere presence of international aid workers helps safeguard people in the camps as well. That is one more reason Khartoum tries to keep them out. Rebel groups add to the violence by attacking humanitarian workers as well, stealing their vehicles and supplies. According to the report, both the rebel groups and the government-supported militias use child soldiers to help fight their battles.

The State Department's Human Rights Report is just the latest testament to the atrocities that continue to unfold in Darfur.

Mr. President, it is time the world brought these crimes against humanity to a halt. We do that by taking steps that we can in the United States--starting with supporting divestment and imposing tougher sanctions, and we should go to the United Nations and demand a vote. We have been told over and over again that if we ask the United Nations to get involved, it is likely that one country on the Security Council-- and many point to China--will veto that request. Well, so be it. Let us have this vote, let us be on the record, let us say that in the midst of genocide, we forced the issue to a vote and the United States voted on the side of compassion and humanity. Let those countries threatening a veto explain their position.

I thank my colleagues, Senator Cornyn, Senator Specter, and Senator Lieberman for joining me in this step we take today to support State and local divestment. Many people wonder what one or two Senators can accomplish. We are fortunate in the State of Illinois to have a legacy of some great people who have served in the Senate, from both political parties. The Presiding Officer and I were fortunate to count as a friend a former U.S. Senator, the late Paul Simon.

In 1994, when the Rwanda genocide was unfolding, Paul Simon saw it, and he went to Jim Jeffords, a Republican Senator from Vermont, and he said: We have to do something; innocent people are being hacked to death in Rwanda. He and Senator Jeffords then called Romeo Dallaire, the U.N. Peacekeeping General in Rwanda at the time in 1994, and they asked: What will it take to stop the killing? He said: It will take 5,000 equipped soldiers, and I can stop this massacre--only 5,000. So Senator Simon and Senator Jeffords called down to the Clinton White House and said: We need to talk to somebody about getting 5,000 soldiers in to stop a massacre. Their call went unheeded. There was no response. President Clinton now apologizes today, saying it was one of the worst foreign policy decisions of his administration. I respect his honesty and candor, but the fact is, no soldiers were sent.

Recently, a little over a year ago, I visited Rwanda for the first time. I went to Hotel Rwanda, made famous by the movie, Hotel des Mille Collines, where a brave little hotel manager played the role of Oscar Schindler in his time. He started harboring people who otherwise would have been killed in the streets of Kigali, Rwanda. It was harrowing to walk through the hotel and imagine what life was like; to know that 11 years before, people huddled, afraid they were about to be pulled out and killed in the streets. You would look down at this beautiful, crystal-clear swimming pool and realize it was the water in that pool that sustained them during that period.

I went down the hill from that hotel to a red brick Catholic church, known as Ste. Famille. I looked inside during the early morning, and I went back to the hotel. Someone in the hotel said: That is a famous church. A thousand people sought asylum as refugees in that church but, unfortunately, the doors were opened and a thousand people were hacked to death in that church.

That is the reality of genocide. It is the reality of Rwanda, and it is the reality of Darfur. It is a reality we cannot ignore. We have the power. The question is, Do we have the will?

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce the Pediatric Medical Device Safety and Improvement Act of 2007. This legislation provides a comprehensive approach to ensuring that children are not left behind as cutting-edge research and revolutionary technologies for medical devices advance. Like drugs, where for too long children were treated like small adults and could just be given reduced doses of adult products, many essential medical devices used extensively by pediatricians are not designed or sized for children. In fact, the development of new medical devices suitable for children's smaller and growing bodies can lag 5 or 10 years behind those for adults.

While children and adults suffer from many of the same diseases and conditions, their device needs can vary considerably due to differences in size, rates of growth, critical development periods, anatomy, physiological differences such as breathing and heart rate, and physical activity levels. To date, because the pediatric market is so small and pediatric diseases relatively rare, there has been little incentive for device manufacturers to focus their attention on children. The result has been that pediatric providers must resort to ``jury-rigging'' or fashioning make-shift device solutions for pediatric use. When that is not an option, providers may be forced to use more invasive treatment or less effective therapies.

For example, at present, left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) do not exist in the U.S. for children less than 5 years old. An LVAD is a mechanical pump that helps a heart that is too weak to pump blood through the body. So, infants and children under five years of age who have critical failure of their left or right ventricles have to be supported through extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). An ECMO consists of a pump, an artificial lung, a blood warmer and an arterial filter, which is installed by inserting tubes into large veins or arteries located in the right side of the neck or the groin. While ECMOs can help children for short periods of time, they are problematic. They can cause dangerous clots and the blood thinners that prevent these clots may lead to internal bleeding. In addition, children must remain bedridden while using the device.

For young children needing to be on a ventilator to assist their breathing, the lack of non-invasive ventilators with masks that suitably fit babies has led to respiratory treatments that are inadequate or invasive treatment options such as placing a tube in the baby's throat.

Children needing prosthetic heart valves face a disproportionately high failure rate. Because of the biochemistry of children's growing bodies, prosthetic heart valves implanted in children calcify and deteriorate much faster than in adults. Typically, children with a heart valve implant who survive to adulthood will need four or five operations. Additionally, devices currently available for children must be better able to expand and grow as the child grows.

Over the past several years, efforts have been launched to better identify barriers to the development of pediatric devices and to generate solutions for improving children's access to needed medical devices.

Beginning in June 2004, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the

National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD), the National Association of Children's Hospitals, and the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) hosted a series of stakeholders meetings that yielded recommendations for improving the availability of pediatric devices. In October 2004, in response to a directive in the Medical Devices Technical Corrections Act of 2004, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a report that identified numerous barriers to the development and approval of medical devices for children. And in July 2005, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) issued a report on the adequacy of postmarket surveillance of pediatric medical devices, as mandated by the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act of 2002. The IOM found significant flaws in safety monitoring and recommended expanding the FDA's ability to require post-market studies of certain products and improve public access to information about post-market pediatric studies.

This legislation seeks to address the equally important issues of pediatric medical device safety and availability. To begin with, the bill creates a mechanism to allow the FDA to track the number and types of medical devices approved specifically for children or for conditions that occur in children. It also allows the FDA to use adult data to support a determination of reasonable assurance of effectiveness in pediatric populations and to extrapolate data between pediatric subpopulations.

The market for pediatric medical devices simply isn't what it is for adults. Therefore, many device manufacturers have been reluctant to make devices for children. The bill creates an incentive for companies by modifying the existing Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) provision to allow manufacturers to profit from devices that are specifically designed to meet a pediatric need.

To prevent abuse, the bill reverts to current law which allows no profit on sales of devices that exceed the number estimated to be needed for the approved condition. This provision is modeled after the existing Orphan Products Division designation process. Under no circumstances can there be a profit on sales if the device is used to treat or diagnose diseases or conditions affecting more than 4,000 individuals in the U.S. per year which is the same number allowed under current law. Already approved adult HDEs upon date of enactment are eligible for the HDE profit modification but only if they meet the conditions of the bill. The lifting of the profit restriction for new pediatric HDEs sunsets in 2013 and the FDA is required to issue a report on its impact within five years.

In order to encourage pediatric medical device research, the bill requires the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to designate a point of contact at the agency to help innovators and physicians access funding for pediatric medical device development. It also requires the NIH, the FDA, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to submit a plan for pediatric medical device research that identifies gaps in such research and proposes a research agenda for addressing them. In identifying the gaps, the plan can include a survey of pediatric medical providers regarding unmet pediatric medical device needs.

To better foster innovation in the private sector, the bill establishes demonstration grants for non-profit consortia to promote pediatric device development, including matchmaking between inventors and manufacturers and Federal resources. These demonstration grants, which are authorized for $6 million annually, require the federal government to mentor and help manage pediatric device projects through the development process, including product identification, prototype design, device development and marketing. Under the bill, grantees must coordinate with the NIH's pediatric devices point of contact to identify research issues that require further study and with the FDA to help facilitate approval of pediatric indications.

Finally, in its 2005 report on pediatric medical device safety, the IOM found serious flaws in the postmarket safety surveillance of these devices. The legislation allows FDA to require postmarket studies as a condition of clearance for certain categories of devices. This includes ``a class II or class III device the failure of which would be reasonably likely to have serious adverse health consequences or is intended to be (1) implanted in the human body for more than one year, or (2) a life sustaining or life supporting device used outside a device user facility.''

The legislation also gives the FDA the ability to require studies longer than three years with respect to a device that is to have significant use in pediatric populations if such studies would be necessary to address longer-term pediatric questions, such as the impact on growth and development. And, it establishes a publicly accessible database of postmarket study commitments that involve questions about device use in pediatric populations.

The legislation I am introducing today has been many years in the making. Last year, I introduced this legislation with Senator DeWine and I thank him for working with me on it and many other initiatives to improve children's health. I would like to also thank the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Thoracic Society and the National Organization for Rare Disorders for their tireless work and support for this legislation. The bill I am introducing today is supported by the Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed) and its member company Stryker and I thank them for their support. The bill reflects many of the comments they provided throughout the development of this legislation and I am pleased that they join me today in supporting its passage. Several other device manufacturers including Respironics, Seleon, and Breas Medical AB have previously supported this legislation and I would like to recognize and thank them for their continued support of the bill.

I look forward to working with patient groups, physicians, industry and my colleagues--including the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, Senators Kennedy and Enzi--to move this legislation when the Committee considers medical device-related legislation. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation and I am hopeful that it will become law as soon as possible.

I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, we are on a very important piece of legislation, as we all know, the unfinished work of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We have been on this bill now for almost 2 full weeks, but we have been unsuccessful so far in being able to get votes on key amendments, which I do believe would fill a significant gap in the protections that are available to the American people in the post-9/11 world.

We yesterday offered a package of amendments which actually represents a consolidation of previously filed amendments I want to discuss briefly, which I think fulfills that important role of gap- filling in the unfinished work from the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

Last night, Senator McConnell, the Republican leader, filed cloture on amendment No. 312, as modified. It is my hope, when we have that vote tomorrow--as currently scheduled under the regular order--we will have an up-or-down vote on provisions critical to addressing threats that terrorists employ in the United States and on U.S. citizens.

This amendment contains five critical homeland security tools. It is imperative we include this legislation to give the appropriate Federal agencies the authority, No. 1, to punish those who recruit terrorists; No. 2, to revoke the visas of terrorists; No. 3, to allow the U.S. Government to detain dangerous aliens; No. 4, to punish those who provide material support--in other words, financial inducement--or I should say support to families of those who engage in terrorist acts; and, No. 5, to protect families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes.

These are all contained in amendment No. 312, on which a cloture motion has been filed, and upon which we will vote tomorrow, if not before by agreement.

I want to explain these important tools so Members understand what is at stake.

The first of these provisions is to provide the Federal Government, for the first time in our Nation's history, the ability to punish those who actually recruit terrorists. We know from intelligence products gained from--and now public--Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, they were actively engaged in recruiting terrorists within the United States--in our prisons, in some mosques, and elsewhere--with the idea of having a terrorist who could act within this country and who would, therefore, not be stopped by the various protective mechanisms we put in place, whether it be the Transportation Security Administration, improvement of our intelligence gathering and sharing to prevent dangerous aliens from entering the country and committing terrorists acts.

The whole concept behind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's efforts was to recruit people domestically, people who would not meet sort of the typical description some would anticipate or the profiles the intelligence officials might have of the type of person who would be logically suspect for terrorist activities. So what this part of the amendment would do would be to punish recruitment of terrorists within the United States. This is a gap in our laws that needs to be filled.

Senator Grassley had previously filed an amendment which is now included in this consolidation. This has to do with revoking the visas of terrorists. Under current law, visas approved or denied by consular officials are nonreviewable. That is overseas. If somebody applies for a visa, and they do not get it, then those are not reviewable. In other words, there is not a stream of litigation or successive appeals they can go through in order to challenge the denial of their visa.

However, if a visa is approved but later revoked and that individual is on U.S. soil, the decision by the consular officer is reviewable in U.S. courts. This amendment makes these revocations nonreviewable.

This is both a practical problem and is actually a huge difficulty, identified by the Government Accountability Office in 2003. They said that even if an alien's visa is revoked on terrorism grounds after the alien reaches the United States, it is almost impossible to deport the suspected terrorist because persons with a revoked visa can stay in the United States and have a right to successive appeals of a consular officer's decision.

Moreover, allowing the review of these revoked visas, especially on terrorism grounds, jeopardizes the classified intelligence that may have led to the revocation in the first place and makes the FBI and CIA hesitant to share the information. We can see how that standoff would occur. They are hesitant to share the information; therefore, visas of dangerous persons are not revoked.

So due to the practical delay caused by review, we would suggest-- this amendment suggests--we treat the visas exactly the same whether they are denied outside of the country or revoked inside of the country based on terrorism grounds.

Also included in this package is an amendment that has to do with the detention of individuals who have entered our country illegally and are subject to being repatriated, particularly criminal aliens. This grows out of a Supreme Court decision in 2001, where the Supreme Court held, in the Zabidah case, the Department of Homeland Security could not detain a person longer than 6 months. In this case, for someone with a criminal record, who could not legally stay in the United States, they could not detain them more than 6 months. Unless they were successful in getting them repatriated or returned to their country of origin, the only thing the Department of Homeland Security could do is release them into the general population of the United States. That is simply an unacceptable result.

What this amendment would do is change the statutory law of the United States, as invited by the U.S. Supreme Court, to authorize the Department of Homeland Security to detain dangerous aliens longer than 6 months if, in fact, there is a reasonable expectation that individual will be repatriated to their country of origin.

For example, the Government had to release Carlos Rojas Fritze, who sodomized, raped, beat, and robbed a stranger in a public restroom and then called it, bizarrely, ``an act of love,'' and Tuan Thai, who repeatedly raped, tortured, and terrorized women and vowed to repeat his crimes. These are just two individuals who, under the Supreme Court decision, had to be released into the American public--obviously a great danger to the American

people. We need to act to fix this gap, as invited by the U.S. Supreme Court, so dangerous aliens like these individuals can be detained and so the American people can be protected.

One other element of this package of amendments is punishing those who provide material support for terrorists. We recall that Saddam Hussein was providing $25,000 for the families of Palestinians who engaged in terrorist attacks in Israel. The fact is, there is a practice in some quarters of providing financial support for families as an inducement to terrorists so they know that if they commit terrorist acts, at least their families will be financially provided for. Well, this provision of this amendment would punish material support for terrorists, and I think the reasons for doing that are self-evident.

The provision will expand the section of the U.S. Criminal Code which punishes murder or assault of U.S. nationals overseas for terrorist purposes, so that it equally punishes attempts and conspiracies to murder U.S. nationals for terrorist purposes.

Finally, protecting families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. The last provision necessary for the safety and security of all citizens is establishing the right of the American Government to protect the families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to speak for 2 more minutes in our morning business allocation.

This last provision provides the right of the American Government to protect families of soldiers from terrorist hoaxes. For example, this provision would increase the penalties for perpetrating a hoax about the death, injury, or capture of a U.S. soldier during wartime.

I think we would all agree that a hoax about the death of a U.S. soldier is a serious offense that should be made a crime and can result in devastating consequences to the family that is the subject of a hoax. In one such incident involving a soldier from Flagstaff, AZ, who was serving in Iraq, the Army sent the soldier a satellite phone so he could call home from Iraq to reassure them that he was, in fact, alive and uninjured. Unfortunately, another soldier was killed in the process of trying to deliver the satellite phone to the soldier so he could reassure his own family, and the message did not get through on a timely basis.

I think we would all agree this is simply unacceptable. Our military personnel put their lives on the line every day for our freedom and our families who support them. One of the most important things we can do is make sure they are protected against those who would perpetrate these kinds of cruel hoaxes on them and take advantage of their concerns and natural anxiety for the welfare of their loved ones serving us abroad.

So I hope our colleagues will vote for cloture on this important package of amendments, and we will have that opportunity tomorrow, if not sooner.

Mr. President, I know I have other colleagues, my two colleagues from Georgia, who are here to speak in our portion of morning business, and I will yield the floor at this time to them.