Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the substitute amendment, which is at the desk, and the text of the Senate committee-reported bill be considered and agreed to; the bill, as amended, be considered as original text for the purpose of further amendment; and that no points of order be considered waived by this agreement.

Mr. President, I am proud to present to the U.S. Senate the bill to fund the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and our science agencies. I want to thank Senators Reid and McConnell for agreeing to bring up the CJS bill, and Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for the CJS Subcommittee's robust 302(b) allocation. This is a bipartisan bill. Senator Shelby and I worked hand-in-hand. I thank him and his excellent staff for their partnership.

The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did. We are proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's budget request.

Let's talk about how we spent the money. The subcommittee had three priorities:

Security--keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and violent crime.

Innovation--investments in science and technology to create jobs that will stay in the United States.

Accountability--fiscal accountability and stewardship of taxpayer dollars, standing sentry against waste, fraud and abuse.

The subcommittee's first priority is protecting America from terrorism and violent crime. The Justice Department is almost 50 percent of the CJS bill. Funding for Justice totals almost $25 billion, $2.1 billion more than the President's request. The CJS bill funds our major Federal law enforcement agencies, and our State and local cops on the beat.

CJS funds the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI. The FBI is our domestic national security agency. It has a dual mission--disrupting terrorism on U.S. soil--tracking and taking down terror cells and dismantling dirty bombs, as well as fighting violent crime in our communities. The CJS bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI, $150 million more than the President's budget request. This includes almost $4 billion for FBI counterterrorism. Our bill will put 230 new counterterrorism agents on the beat and give agents new tools to collect intelligence to protect Americans here at home. At the same time, the President's budget cut 100 FBI agents dedicated to fighting violent crime. This is outrageous--because for the first time in almost 15 years, violent crime has increased. Robberies are up 7 percent. Homicides are up 2 percent. Nearly every region of the country has been affected--from large cities to small communities. We've heard from our colleagues that the FBI needs more agents fighting violent crime in their communities. The CJS bill rejects the President's irresponsible cut. We provide full funding to retain 100 FBI agents that the President eliminated.

The CJS bill also funds the Drug Enforcement Administration, DEA. The DEA is an international agency--in over 60 countries, with significant local responsibilities. It's fighting a $330 billion annual drug trade in over 60 countries around the world. Drugs finance over two-thirds of all terrorist activity, including the Taliban. The DEA is in Afghanistan fighting narcoterrorism, working hand-in-hand with our military to disrupt the poppy trade that funds terrorist networks. And the DEA is in our communities, fighting the scourge of illegal drugs like heroin and meth that destroy our neighborhoods. We were horrified to learn that the DEA has a hiring freeze. The DEA can't hire new agents. This is outrageous--so we added $50 million to DEA to lift the hiring freeze so DEA can hire up 200 new agents to fight drugs at home and abroad.

The CJS bill funds the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, ATF, which investigates arson and stops illegal firearms trafficking. The ATF is working hand-in-hand with our military to disable the improvised explosive devices, IEDs, that are so perilous to our troops on the battlefield. We provide robust support for our U.S. Marshals Service, keeping our marshals on the beat to track down dangerous fugitives--including sexual predators and drug kingpins-- protect

Federal judges and provide security at terrorist trials here in the U.S. and in Afghanistan.

The CJS bill is also the most important source of Federal funding for the frontline men and women of our State and local police forces, working tirelessly to keep our families and neighborhoods safe. Our cops on the beat are working harder than ever to fight rising violent crime. And our State and local police are often the first to identify suspected terrorist activities in their communities. At the same time, State and local budgets are under increased stress. So we were deeply troubled by the President's draconian cuts of almost $1.5 billion from grant funds for State and local police. The CJS bill rejects these outrageous cuts. Instead we provide a total of $2.7 billion to give our cops the tools they need to fight crime, gangs, drugs, domestic violence, and crimes against children.

Our bill provides $660 million for Byrne formula grants. President Bush eliminated Byrne grants formula grants to States that pay for police and prosecutors, training and technology, and require a 25- percent State match. The first President Bush named these grants for Edward Byrne, a New York City police officer killed in the line of fire. If Byrne grants were good enough for Bush 41, why aren't they good enough for this President Bush?

We also provide $550 million for Community Oriented Policing Services, COPS, grants. President Bush only asked for $32 million to terminate COPS grants. COPS is a competitive grant program that pays for police salaries and overtime, police technology, and equipment like surveillance cameras and interoperable communications equipment. The CJS bill makes sure that our cops are not walking the thin blue line drawn through green eyeshades.

The CJS bill provides over $300 million to prevent, investigate and prosecute despicable crimes against children. This includes: $55 million for a new national initiative for grants to State and locals to locate, arrest and prosecute child sexual predators; $65 million to fight child abduction and exploitation and locate missing children; $9 million for the FBI's Innocent Images project--for agents and technology to track the deviants who use the Internet to prey on our children; $8 million for the U.S. Marshals to apprehend fugitive sexual predators and get them off our streets and out of our neighborhoods; $10 million for grants to keep kids safe from violence at school.

Our second priority for the CJS bill is investing in America's future competitiveness. We added $1 billion above the President's request for science, education and economic development to foster job creation--for jobs that will stay in this country and to inspire and train our future scientists and engineers. We based our funding levels on the best ideas from outside experts like the National Academy of Sciences. We took the politics out of science. The CJS bill implements the framework of the recently enacted America COMPETES Act. This bipartisan legislation recommended investments in science and education to improve America's global competitiveness.

We provide $6.5 billion for the National Science Foundation, NSF, $125 million above the President's budget request. NSF is important because it funds 20 percent of all federally supported basic research conducted by America's colleges and universities in many fields such as math and computer science. NSF is the major source of federal support. NSF keeps the U.S. on the leading edge of discovery in areas like astronomy and geology. And NSF supports our college and universities' efforts to educate our next generation of scientists and engineers, including at our historically Black colleges and universities, HBCUs.

We provide $860 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST. NIST is important because it sets standards that are critical to successful commerce, and transfers technology to American industry. Our recommendations provide $100 million for the Technology Innovation Partnership program, which will replace the Advanced Technology Program to foster the development of the newest technologies, and $110 for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership, MEP, which helps U.S. manufacturers to be more competitive.

The bill also provides $17.5 billion for NASA, $150 million above the President's budget request. NASA is our No. 1 innovation agency. No other agency has the ability to inspire our future scientists and engineers like NASA does. The bill keeps our commitment to human space flight. It fully funds the space shuttle at $4 billion and the space station at $2.2 billion. And we provide $3.9 billion to Ares and Orion, the next generation vehicle. The space shuttle will be retired in 2010. We must continue to have safe, reliable space transportation.

Later, I will offer an amendment with Senators Hutchison, Shelby and Landrieu to finally begin to pay the bill of returning the space shuttle to flight after the Columbia tragedy. To ensure that we continue to have the premier space agency in the world, NASA must have a balanced portfolio of human space flight, science and aeronautics research.

In the area of Earth science, the bill includes $25 million above the budget request to begin to implement the recommendations of the recent Earth Science Decadal Survey, the top priorities of the scientific community, and missions we need to accomplish to help us better understand and predict the Earth's environment and climate.

For aeronautics research, we provide $554 million. This is so critical because we must rise to the challenge of our international competitors. Aeronautics is an area that we would have liked to do more. As our bill moves to conference with the other body, we hope to be able to add funding for aeronautics.

A strong patent system is critical to an innovation-friendly government. We provide $1.9 billion for the Patent and Trademark Office, PTO--this is full access to all fees. We know there have been concerns that the PTO's fees have been used to pay for other priorities. Senator Shelby and I are committed to giving PTO full access to the resources it needs. Our bill will allow the PTO to hire 1,200 new patent examiners to reduce application backlogs and processing times. We are livid that it takes almost 3 years for the PTO to make a decision on a patent application. Through our oversight, we have required PTO to implement management reforms to reduce the backlog of applications, while ensuring quality.

The CJS bill also provides $420 million for the International Trade Administration, ITA, to investigate unfair trade practices and enforce our trade laws. It includes $48 million for the United States Trade Representative, USTR, to negotiate trade agreements that protect our intellectual property.

For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, the bill provides $4.2 billion, $400 million above the President's budget request. This includes $795 million to implement the bipartisan recommendations of the Joint Ocean Commission. Seventy percent of the Earth is covered by oceans, but only 5 percent of the oceans are explored. Our Nation's economy depends on the oceans. Oceans contribute $120 billion to our economy and support over 2 million jobs. The bill also provides full funding for the National Weather Service, which is so important to saving lives and livelihoods.

I think my colleagues would be interested in knowing that the CJS bill funds 85 percent of all federal climate change science. That's about $1.6 billion for peer-reviewed basic research at NSF, atmospheric weather and climate research at NOAA, and NASA Earth science missions studying. As we look for solutions to this crisis, the CJS bill will continue to give us sound science to inform our policy decisions.

The CJS bill emphasizes oversight, accountability and fiscal stewardship. Let me tell my colleagues--there's a new sherriff in town. It's a bipartisan posse against cost overruns, ineffective management and mismanagement of taxpayer dollars. The CJS Subcommittee, through its oversight, has uncovered enormous cost overruns and schedule slippages. NOAA's satellite program was $4 billion over budget. NSF's research equipment was $25 million over budget. At the appropriate time, I will offer an amendment to prevent this mismanagement and get our agencies back to fiscal discipline.

Through our oversight, we also uncovered dramatic backlogs at PTO and the Equal Employment Opportunity

Commission, EEOC. And we required effective, efficient management reform. The CJS bill insists on discipline and vigorous oversight. It requires each agency to notify the committee about cost overruns greater than 10 percent, bans funding for lavish banquets, and requires that inspectors general conduct random audits of grant funding.

Unfortunately, the President threatened to veto the CJS bill. He doesn't support funding for these additional investments I have outlined. The CJS bill reflects bipartisan priorities to make America safer and smarter. I think these investments in fighting terrorism and violent crime, and educating our future scientists and engineers, are wise uses of taxpayer dollars.

Let me be clear--we didn't overspend; the President under funded. It is not lavish to lift the DEA hiring freeze so we starve terrorists of their financing, or to give our men and women in blue the tools they need to keep us safe.

The President should not veto this bill. Instead, together we should veto funding for the Taliban and jobs moving overseas. I believe that, if necessary, the Senate will stand up for our families, neighborhoods and communities by standing up against the President's veto. Let's veto jobs going overseas; let's veto the Taliban.

Again, I want to thank Senator Shelby and his staff for their cooperation and collegiality. This is a fair and balanced bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it. For the information of our colleagues, Senator Shelby and I intend to move this bill quickly. We encourage Members with amendments to come to the floor and offer them now. The bill fully complies with the subcommittee's 302(b) allocation so any amendments will need offsets. It also fully complies with the recently enacted Honest Leadership and Open Government Act.

Mr. President, in a short time, I will be joined by my colleague, the distinguished senior Senator from Alabama, who is my ranking member. He, too, will be making his opening statement. I thank Senators Reid and McConnell for agreeing to bring up this billand Chairman Byrd and Ranking Member Cochran for a rather robust 302(b) allocation to let this bill go forward.

First, let me say to my colleagues in the Senate as they watch this debate that this bill is a bipartisan bill. The Senator from Alabama, Mr. Shelby, and I worked hand in hand to craft a bill that is in the best interest of the United States of America and not trying to score partisan political points. That is what we have done.

The Commerce-Justice-Science bill promotes a strong economy, promotes a safer country, and also promotes U.S. competitiveness in the world.

The CJS bill totals $54 billion in discretionary budget authority. Did we spend more than the President asked for? You bet we did, and we are proud that our bill is $3.2 billion above the President's request because we put the money primarily into security. We spent the money in this bill on security, keeping 300 million Americans safe from terrorism and also fighting violent crime. We also promoted innovation and competitiveness by investing in scientific research and technology and the scientific education of our people. But we were also strong stewards of the taxpayers' money and have promoted accountability, fiscal accountability, and stewardship of taxpayers' dollars. We, working on a bipartisan basis, stood sentry against waste, fraud and abuse and we have put our language also in the checkbook.

The subcommittee's first priority is to protect the American people-- to protect the American people from terrorism, a war without borders, a war without a front. We also want to protect them here at home against violent crime, against murder, mayhem, sexual predators stalking our children, violence against women, looking out for our children, and making sure there are enough cops on the beat.

The Justice Department is almost 50 percent of the CJS bill. Funding for the Justice component totals over $25 billion. But remember what we do: We fund the Federal law enforcement agencies--the FBI, the DEA, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, as well as our Marshals Service. Our major law enforcement count on us. But who else also counts on us? State and local cops on the beat. We have put the money into the Federal checkbook to say: As you go after the bad guys, we are absolutely on your side.

Let us start with our primary responsibility as a Federal government, and that is funding the FBI, the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It is our premier domestic law enforcement agency. It has a dual mission. One is fighting violent crime in our communities, and in that it is well known, well established, and well respected. But after that terrible attack on the United States, we had to decide how we were going to have a domestic agency also focus on terrorism. We didn't create a new Federal agency to do that because we didn't want a new bureaucracy. We wanted a new and fresh effort against terrorism. So we gave it to the FBI. If you read all the British spy novels and so on, the FBI is akin to the MI5 in England.

This bill provides $6.6 billion for the FBI. That is $6.6 billion for the FBI, which is $150 million more than the President's budget. This includes almost $4 billion for their counterterrorism effort. To make sure we are fighting terrorism effectively, our bill also puts 230 new counterterrorism agents out there and gives them new tools to protect Americans at home.

At the same time, we want to make sure we are fighting violent crime. We have been very concerned about some of the budget games going on at Justice and OMB, where they keep moving agents around, out of their job of fighting crime to fight terrorism so those numbers look good; then they eliminate those vacancies, and there we are. We need our FBI doing both. Violent crime in America has increased 2 percent. Homicides are up 2 percent and robberies are up 7 percent. Nearly every region of the country has been affected, from very large cities to small communities.

We have heard from our colleagues the FBI needs more agents and more help fighting violent crime in their communities. The CJS bill rejects the President's cut. We provide funding to retain 100 FBI agents that the President eliminated. Eliminating FBI agents when we are fighting crime and fighting terrorism? I don't think that is a good idea. I don't think that is a good idea at all. On a bipartisan basis, we rejected that foolhardy recommendation. So we will be there for the

Mr. President, on August 2, 2007, by a vote of 83-14, the Senate approved S. 1, the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007. The President signed the legislation on September 14, 2007. This ethics reform legislation will significantly improve the transparency and accountability of the legislative process.

Pursuant to new rule XLIV, it is required that the chair of the committee of jurisdiction certify that certain information related to congressionally directed spending be identified and that the required information be available on a publicly accessible congressional website in a searchable format at least 48 hours before a vote on the pending bill. In addition, Members who request such items are required to certify in writing that neither they nor their immediate family have a pecuniary interest in the items they requested and the committee is required to make those certification letters available on the Internet.

The information provided includes identification of the congressionally directed spending and the name of the Senator who requested such spending. This information is contained in the committee report numbered 110-124, dated June 29, 2007, and has been available on the Internet for 3 months. The Member letters concerning pecuniary interest are also available on the Internet.

I am submitting for the Record the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations.

I want to say this bill complies with the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007, and Senator Byrd certifies that, under Senate rules, all this information is available on the congressional Web site.

I ask unanimous consent the certification by the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, this committee now says to our colleagues, if they have any amendments, this is an excellent time to bring them down and offer them. We know we have some amendments we are working now to clear, but if someone wants to talk about our bill, this is a very good time to come and speak on it. If they have amendments they wish to offer that might require a vote, this is a good time to offer them.

It will be the intention of Senator Shelby and myself to try to finish this bill today, so this whole idea of let's hang around until 8 o'clock at night and then come around like little vampires to offer amendments is not a good idea. Frankly, as we move along and as some of the major amendments will be addressed, if there are no amendments, we will move the bill. It is not a threat. It is for people who know the holidays are coming. We are ready.

Colleagues, if you have amendments you think can improve this bill, come down and discuss them.

Mr. President, while we are waiting for the onslaught of Members coming to the floor, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, my amendment is very straightforward. Remember earlier in my remarks I talked about our accountability and our stewardship? I will be offering two amendments that will deal with those. This is the first of them. It makes sure the Department of Justice is not misusing taxpayer dollars on lavish expenditures and conferences. Conferences are meant for training.

Our amendment simply requires that Justice do two things: Notify the inspector general of any conferences exceeding $20,000 and demonstrate what steps are being taken to implement the inspector general's recommendations that actually uncovered some of these expenditures at lavish conferences.

To elaborate, the Justice IG issued a report and said the 10 most expensive conferences had totaled over $6.9 million. Most conferences are well organized and the money is spent frugally--which I know is a big issue with the Presiding Officer. What we found was that some of those funds were spent on ``networking.'' They had lobster skewers. At one conference, each meatball cost $4. That is a lot of money for a meatball. Literally, we believed because we were working so hard to make sure that law enforcement had the tools they needed, we wanted to make sure the taxpayers got a good deal and that we got law enforcement for our money and not $4 meatballs.

I don't know if my colleague wishes to speak on the amendment.

I move the pending amendment be laid aside subject to the clearance of one of our colleagues.

Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration

Mr. President, this amendment is simple and straightforward. It stops the cost overruns on NOAA's weather satellites before they get out of control.

The NOAA satellite program is an absolutely crucial program to the United States of America. It gives us major weather satellites, known as NPOESS, polar orbiting, and one called GOES that gives us the geostationary information. They are crucial to our ability to forecast weather, measure climate change, and actually pinpoint where disasters could be threatening a community. It saves lives and saves livelihoods. Thanks to these satellites, we can often get early warnings when a disaster is coming, from a tornado to a hurricane.

What has happened is the satellites have grown far beyond their original estimates. We are concerned that the ideas are good, but they are not being properly managed.

Let me tell you about these overruns. Two years ago, NOAA's polar orbiting satellite grew by 25 percent. That is $4 billion, $4 billion.

Now, because the Defense Department is a partner in the satellite program, the Nunn-McCurdy process was triggered. There was a stand-down and the processes were reassessed. Nunn-McCurdy acts like a circuit breaker, forcing management reforms and program changes to control costs.

But with the next generation of geostationary satellites we are beginning to see early signs of trouble. We have been alerted that the costs may grow substantially. One of our satellite programs has Nunn- McCurdy, but the one that is called GOES does not. Therefore, I am offering a commonsense amendment modeled after Nunn-McCurdy that all NOAA satellite programs follow essentially this kind of oversight.

The amendment requires the Secretary of Commerce to certify the satellite program; requires the Secretary to look at alternatives if the cost exceeds 15 percent of the original estimate; makes sure they notify Congress and keep us informed sooner rather than later; requires the Secretary of Commerce to utilize independent cost estimates.

This will act as a circuit breaker to make sure that as these satellites go forward, they are coming up with not only good ideas to protect the Nation but good fiscal stewardship to protect the taxpayer.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment because it will bring strong management, better and stronger management and fiscal discipline to the satellite program.

Mr. President, I concur with setting aside the amendment.

I also want to say something. I believe I am the bastion of collegiality. I believe conversation avoids confrontation. That is why we have such a great bill. We have a fantastic bill we have arrived at together.

Senator Shelby and I go back a long way, from the House of Representatives where we served, and we have been appropriators during our entire time in the Senate. But in clearing things, we are talking about clearing it with one Senator. That Senator must exercise a lot of fiscal responsibility. I am ready to move my bill along. I would like him or his representative to promptly come to the floor.

If we have this new kind of arrangement where we have to clear it with this Senator rather than clearing it with the ranking member and our leadership, then I would like that Senator to come to the floor. I will be collegial. I will be patient up to a point.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate return to consideration of amendment No. 3216.

I urge the adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. President, we are trying to clear amendments that have been cleared by Senator Shelby and myself. Others are looking at them, so we are proceeding. While those amendments are being cleared, one of the issues I wanted to bring to our colleagues' attention is how we are making America more competitive with this bill.

Earlier in my presentation in which I gave an overview of the bill, I emphasized what we were doing in law enforcement, which I am so proud of, and of course the Presiding Officer himself as a former attorney general knows how important the Federal and local law enforcement agencies are. But this bill is called Commerce-Justice-Science.

We focused, in our subcommittee--myself and my ranking member, Senator Shelby--on three issues this year: security, competitiveness, and accountability--the stewardship of the taxpayers' dollar. We focused on competitiveness because it is our subcommittee that funds the major science agencies that come up with the new ideas that help come up with the new jobs, the research that enables the private sector to take value and add to it to come up with the new products and very high-end technology. That provides jobs right in our own country and enables us to be competitive.

We based a lot of our work on legislation called the America COMPETES Act. I know the Presiding Officer was part of that. This year, it was a bill that was passed by the House and the Senate to ensure our Nation's competitive position in the world through improvements to math and science, both a commitment to research and math and science education. It follows through on a commitment to ensure U.S. students, teachers, businesses, and workers are prepared to continue to lead the world in research and then taking that research to the private sector so it can come up with those products.

In our bill, we don't do anything that picks winners and losers. We are not industrial policy people. What we are, though, is American policy people, to do this.

This America COMPETES Act was based a lot on recommendations that came from the National Academy of Science report called ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm.'' That report was done at the request of three leaders: Senator Domenici, Senator Bingaman, and Senator Alexander. Then I, after it was published, became part of the group to implement it.

Well, this is a great day for our colleague from New Mexico. I know last night our colleague from New Mexico, Senator Domenici, announced that he is going to retire from the Senate. He is in his home State of New Mexico today sharing his plans for his own future with his constituents. But while he is talking about his own future with his constituents, I want to acknowledge that he worked very hard on a bipartisan basis to ensure the future of the Nation. He and Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander, again, working together, showed that we can do better so that we can compete in the world and that we compete in the world not only to win Nobel prizes--and we will continue to do so--but we will also win the markets, for which we must to have a stronger economy.

So ``Rising Above the Gathering Storm,'' which was promoted by those three excellent and wonderful colleagues, led to, with the help of people such as Senator Lieberman and others, the America COMPETES Act. It keeps research programs at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards, and DOE on a path for doubling the money for research in these key areas.

But, in addition to research, we wanted to make sure we have the scientists, the engineers, and the technology experts to do so. We are falling behind in the number of people who choose science as a career or people with a science education to go into our classrooms. The America COMPETES

Act puts an emphasis on that into action. They wanted to prepare thousands of new teachers and provide current teachers with teaching skills in the area of NSF's Noyce teacher scholarship program. They also wanted to enhance undergraduate education for the future science and engineering workforce. They also wanted to authorize new competitive grants at the Department of Education to increase the number of teachers, so grant programs also help do that.

So we passed the America COMPETES Act. But, as my colleagues know-- what is authorizing legislation? It sets the policy, sets the direction, and puts national goals into the Federal lawbooks, which is a great first step. But now, the legislation we bring before the Senate, the Commerce-Justice-Science bill, the Mikulski-Shelby bipartisan bill, following on the tradition that sparked us, we are actually putting money in the Federal checkbook to do that.

One of the areas, of course, where we do that is we increase funding for research. We are going to talk later on today about NASA, on the anniversary of sputnik, where that little round ball weighing 180 pounds shook up the cosmos and even the galaxies. But little known is something called the National Science Foundation. This was an agency which was created during the Eisenhower administration and has now withstood the test of time. President Eisenhower responded, a warrior-- and we all saw the great miniseries of Ken Burns on the war. We are so proud of Senator Inouye, who was featured in it. But Eisenhower, the man who led us in Europe, knew that when sputnik went up, we were in a race for America's future and we could either respond militarily or we could respond in a way that would have many uses.

Eisenhower created two things: One, the National Science Foundation, and two, something called the National Defense Act.

The National Defense Act was to get our young people involved in science and in technology so that they could come up with those new ideas to make sure that we not only beat the Russians in space but that we beat the Russians in everything--an idea with currency today, I might add. And then, the National Science Foundation. His brother was president of Johns Hopkins University, Milton Eisenhower. Later, what did the National Science Foundation do? We could have put a lot of money into the military so we could shoot those satellites down, but we said we were going to develop our own and be better at it. We became the premier country in satellites. Satellites defend the Nation. Satellites also give us information on weather. Satellites give us information and early warnings on things such as solar flares that can take out our power grid. Satellites were one of the greatest inventions ever created. America led the way.

Eisenhower created this, where we would fund--we, the Federal Government, working in a unique partnership with universities, not Government doing the research but the Government putting money out in almost intellectual venture capital to come up with new research in physics, chemistry, biology, and the basic sciences; and then to give stipends so young, smart people, such as the people who wanted to do the ``October surprise,'' could come out of the hollows of West Virginia and the streets of Baltimore, our communities, to go on to do this.

What did we fund? We funded programs that then we're able to do. In our legislation, we have now increased our research to $6.5 billion. In this, we have focused on education, K through 12. We have also funded other important programs in research, our science programs. We help with minority education.

By the way, this is one of the most important agencies that helps historically black colleges, to make sure they have the financial resources they need. An example would be the increased funding for the Louis Stokes Alliance for Minority Participation. We provide $75 million for math and science partnerships in education. We estimate that our program will have an impact upon over 140 math and science teachers. We also have a talent expansion program to begin to recruit them. We are bringing teachers into internships. Over at Morgan University and down at the Eastern Shore, we have something called the Chesapeake Consortium, where our young people are getting paid internships to work on rocket ships that go off--small rockets that go off from down on Wallops Island.

If you came with me to the Eastern Shore, to Somerset County, where primarily the lifestyle is that of watermen and agriculture--these people work hard and have dirt under their fingernails and big dreams. One of the largest employers is our prison. This is an area the Senators from Virginia share, where the facility is called Wallops Island. Our young people at the Chesapeake Consortium are working at Wallops to develop these small rockets and also work with UAV research. If you went down there with me to that county that has one of the highest poverty rates, in terms of cash income, in my State, and you saw these young men and women with the Chesapeake Consortium shirts on, where they had worked at historically black colleges with our talented science team instead of flipping hamburgers, they had a paid internship, they are flipping ideas. Each and every one of them is a graduate and they have jobs in major technology agencies in our country. This is what we are doing.

I want my colleagues to know we are increasing funding in research. We are investing in education. We are investing in and implementing the America COMPETES Act, and we are making sure we are truly rising above the gathering storm.

I hope Senator Domenici will be here today. I will personally pay my respects to him for being the leader he is. When he returns, he will find we passed this bill. It is a tribute to what bipartisanship means, finding that sensible Senator, and we are going to build a stronger country because of this. I wished to bring this to our colleagues' attention as we clear these amendments.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I concur. I thank the Senator from Alabama for bringing this to our attention. I urge adoption of the amendment.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3220

Mr. President, I ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3220 on behalf of Senator Menendez of New Jersey.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment provides additional funding of $5 million for juvenile mentoring programs. The Senator from New Jersey has an appropriate offset. We have no objection to the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides. Therefore, I ask for the adoption of the amendment. As I said, it has been cleared on both sides.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3227

Mr. President, I continue to ask that the pending amendment be set aside, and I call up amendment No. 3227.

The amendment provides additional funding for a drug court program. The amendment has appropriate offsets. I ask for the adoption of the amendment. It has been cleared on both sides of the aisle.

Mr. President, while we continue to clear our amendments, I say to our colleagues who might have amendments, bring them down. I note that we have hotlined our request.

While we continue to clear amendments, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending Inouye amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I have an amendment which I wish to send to the desk.

Mr. President, this is a very straightforward amendment. What it does is add $10 million to the Office of Violence Against Women.

October is Domestic Violence Awareness Month, and we wanted to be sure that, in our legislation, one of the things we were going to be clear about was that there would be enough resources for our local communities to really deal with the growing issue of domestic violence.

It might come as a surprise that many local law enforcement people are injured in the line of duty when responding to domestic violence. You might say: Well, aren't they hurt when they are responding to robberies and burglaries? The answer is yes. But when a police officer responds to a domestic violence call and he walks into a home--or she-- the police officer usually does not have a weapon drawn because they want to de-escalate the situation. This is often happening behind closed doors where someone is being battered, and the perpetrator could very likely feel threatened and, in turn, use the officer's weapon or another lethal object on the police officer. So the police officers are in danger, the spouse or the child being battered is also in danger, and we want to make sure the funding is not also in jeopardy.

I strongly support the Office of Violence Against Women that was established by our colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden. My amendment simply increases the money, for a total of $400 million. It has an appropriate offset, and it will provide more funding for the training of police officers and prosecutors. It would also continue the funding for battered women shelters and at the same time have a very strong effort in reducing rape, and also prosecution of rape.

The amendment is noncontroversial. We have several cosponsors, including my colleague, Senator Shelby, and also Mrs. Murray of Washington State. So I hope my colleagues would accept this amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for supporting this, and I urge the adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his support.

It will not be our intention to adjourn for lunch. We are going to keep on working and keep on hearing our amendments, and then somewhere around 2 p.m. we will be offering an amendment to deal with NASA funding, which we think will take a considerable amount of time. With our colleagues' cooperation in bringing their amendments to the floor and the NASA amendment, we really do believe, with those who are working to clear these amendments, we can finish up late this afternoon. So we are not going to take a break for lunch; we are going to keep on working. To any colleagues who wish to speak on our bill or bring amendments to us, this is the time. With their cooperation, we can cooperate with all those who would like to be able to call it a day today and get back to their districts for the recess period.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be laid aside.

We are making slow but steady progress. I, therefore, call up amendment No. 3215. It is a Mikulski- Shelby amendment.

I also call up a second-degree amendment offered by Senator Coburn of Oklahoma, amendment No. 3230.

I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

I ask that the second-degree amendment be agreed to.

Parliamentary inquiry: Did we agree to amendment 3215, as amended by Coburn, or did we just agree to the Coburn second degree?

I now ask that amendment 3215, as amended by the Coburn amendment, be agreed to.

Madam President, will the Senator yield for a moment?

How much longer does the Senator intend to talk? We know the Senator from Wisconsin needs to talk, and we need to clear some of our amendments and get ready for a NASA amendment. Of course we want the Senator to finish his third pillar.

If the Senator could contain his remarks, it would be useful to us.

Madam President, I ask that the pending Inouye amendment be set aside.

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3213, as modified, by Senator Domenici of New Mexico and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, this amendment has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, and as an act of respect for our colleague, I ask for its immediate adoption.

Mr. President, we are continuing to clear our amendments, and at or about 2 o'clock, we will begin our debate on the NASA amendment, which we expect will take roughly about 2 hours. At the conclusion of that, we want Senators who have amendments to have either brought them over for consideration, to have either worked with us to clear the amendments, to be either offering the amendments or withdrawing the amendments, so that we can meet our goal to be done in the early evening. We believe we can meet that goal with cooperation. We are in the business of clearing amendments. We hope to have several cleared before we begin the NASA debate, which we expect to be extensive.

I note the Senator from Wisconsin wants to speak at this time. I am going to need about 10 or 15 minutes to actually do the work of the bill. I understand both of my colleagues wish to speak. I am more than happy to cooperate, but at about 10 of 2, we have to move to cleared amendments.

Mr. President, I compliment the Senator from Wisconsin on his comments and his compelling defense for the oppressed, and particularly his eloquent and poignant description of what is happening to women there in the Congo, which should motivate us more to action.

I am happy to report we are getting momentum here and are clearing our amendments. We have some right now that I wish to clear. In a few minutes, we will be going to the NASA amendment.

Mr. President, I thank everybody on both sides of the aisle, and especially Senator Shelby and his team for being great in helping us with this. Many Senators are being cooperative.

Amendment No. 3222

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3222 by Senator Landrieu and ask for its immediate consideration.

This amendment has been cleared on both sides. I ask for its immediate adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3210

Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 3210 by Senator Bingaman and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I send a modification of the amendment to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been cleared on both sides. I urge its adoption.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Amendment No. 3219

Mr. President, the last amendment I have cleared is amendment No. 3219 by Senator Murray. I ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. President, I send a modification to the desk.

Mr. President, this amendment, as modified, has been cleared on both sides of the aisle. I ask for its immediate adoption.

Mr. President, many of our colleagues have filed amendments. I want to soon recognize the Senator from North Dakota who, I know, wants to speak on a tribal issue. First, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I call up an amendment which is at the desk relating to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. President, this amendment has got a rollcall of cosponsors. Of course, it is cosponsored by my very able ranking member, Senator Shelby; Senator Hutchison of Texas, another strong advocate of space and one of the original architects; Senator Landrieu of Louisiana; Nelson and Martinez of Florida--Nelson is an astronaut-- Salazar of Colorado; Lieberman; and strong bipartisan support from Senators Bennett and Vitter. Senator Clinton of New York is included, as well as Senator Brown of Ohio.

This amendment will increase funding for NASA. It is unique and historic

that we offer this amendment right at this minute. This is the 50th anniversary of Sputnik. Fifty years ago, that 180-pound piece of round metal went into space and changed the destiny of mankind. When Sputnik went up, we didn't know what the intent of the Russians was, but a wonderful Republican President by the name of Eisenhower knew we had to get into the space race. We have been in it ever since. But it has never been for predatory purposes or military purposes. Our NASA has always been to go where no man or woman has ever gone before, to be involved in discovery, to also come up with the science to protect our own planet and to further our national agenda in aeronautics.

Joining us today, as we offer this amendment, in the gallery are the astronauts from the space ship Endeavor. They have spent 14 days in space, continuing the work to assemble the International Space Station, which is our lab in the sky, which will also be a gateway to go back to the Moon and stay there when we do, and then on to Mars; after that, who knows where. We welcome them today to watch this debate because, just as we want to keep space free of politics, we want them to see that here on the Senate floor we can work on a bipartisan basis to put the money in the Federal checkbook to do what NASA needs to do to keep this mission.

What this amendment does is adds $1 billion to NASA's budget. It covers the cost of repairing and upgrading the safety of its space shuttle fleet. It comes in the aftermath of the Space Shuttle Columbia accident in 2003. The funding was declared an emergency and they received full funding to return to space.

Our amendment follows the precedent set after the 1986 Space Shuttle Challenger accident, when Congress made a special appropriation to get the shuttle flying again. So this amendment follows the precedent set in 1986 after the Challenger accident. A one-time amount of $3 billion was given to NASA to get the shuttle flying again--not only to simply get it flying, but to make sure our astronauts were safe when they did fly.

By contrast, after the Columbia accident in 2003, NASA only received $100 million in special appropriations. Let me be clear, our goal is not to increase the NASA space budget but to restore the funding that was forced to get after the Columbia accident.

This funding is necessary for three reasons: First, since 2003, when that terrible melancholy event occurred, it has cost NASA over $2 billion to comply with the recommendations of Admiral Gehman to fix what it would take for the remaining shuttles and to fly them safely. Admiral Gehman was asked by the Nation to chair a commission to see what it would take to restore the shuttle's ability to fly again, but also to protect those astronauts. It had engineering solutions, technological solutions, and management recommendations. It was a great report and it was expensive, and do you know what. It was worth it. Is the shuttle flying safely today? You bet it is, and we are all thankful.

At the same time, though, the shuttle has become more expensive to maintain and fly safely. The shuttle is a bit old. It has been hit by unforeseen events, from a hurricane to damage in space. We need the shuttle to maintain our commitment to the International Space Station, where we have treaty obligations.

Second, another reason to support this amendment is the shuttle will be retired in 2010, and we are faced with the challenge of developing a new, reliable, safe human flight vehicle. But the costs of returning the shuttle to flight have forced NASA to cut funds for the next transportation vehicle by almost $500 million. This cut contributes to the gap of over 5 years between when the shuttle retires in 2010 and when we get a brandnew vehicle in 2015.

This is not acceptable. We cannot let China get to the Moon before the United States does. We also need to make sure we keep our astronauts safe for the remaining time they use the shuttle. Also we have to keep that excellent talent down there of scientists, engineers, and mechanics, to keep our shuttle flying safely.

Third, NASA has had to forage for funds in other programs to pay to fix the shuttles. Since 2003, science and aeronautics have been cut by almost $100 million.

Science on the space station has been drastically cut. This has a ripple effect within the scientific community. It affects our future ability to understand and protect changes in our planet and in other issues. The National Academy of Sciences says we need more space science, not less.

The consequences of not doing this amendment are clear. It contributes to the delay of our next space transportation vehicle. No one wants that. We do not want to be grounded for an extensive period of time. It reduces our commitment to our international treaty obligations on the space station.

The goals of the amendment are clear. It maintains our commitment to safe, reliable, and robust human spaceflight. It keeps us on track for the next reliable space transportation vehicle and maintains our commitment to scientific discovery.

We didn't leave NASA with an unpaid bill 20 years ago, and we shouldn't do it now. Twenty years ago, our colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, provided $2.7 billion out of the defense budget to buy a replacement space shuttle. We did not cut NASA's budget after the Challenger accident. We shouldn't do it after the Columbia accident.

We recommend this amendment because it is $1 billion. It follows the precedent from the Challenger accident. It does not add to the base. It fulfills important national goals which were set by our President to lay the groundwork for space exploration to Mars. But if we are going to do that, I believe we have the national will to do that, I believe we need the national wallet to do that.

So 50 years after the birth of our great Apollo Program, we need to make sure we keep our commitment to exploration and discovery. I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.

I yield the floor.

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

Madam President, Senator Nelson will be coming out to speak shortly, an astronaut Senator who will speak eloquently about this. We also hope, for those who would like to challenge our thinking, that they will use this as a time to come to the floor so that we can have an ongoing and continuous debate. We would certainly like to vote on this within the hour, in the interest of moving our bill forward. So we would ask our colleagues to come and speak.

Before I yield the floor, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Boxer be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, the proponents of this amendment have had a very thorough discussion of why we support this amendment. We have spoken for about an hour. We certainly want to be sure that those who might have pause or flashing yellow lights about it bring their concerns to the floor so we can engage in a discussion, maybe even a debate, so we could move this debate forward and dispose of the amendment no later than 4:00 and earlier if possible.

I want to give everyone warning, if there is nobody here, we will move the amendment.

I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Madam President, I rise to speak on the challenge posed by Iran to our national security and the interests of our friends and allies, how the United States should best address the challenge posed by Iran and its leader Ahmadi-Nejad.

This has been much in the news lately. The Iranian President visited New York to the United Nations general assembly last week and delivered a controversial address at Columbia University. During the very same week, the Senate approved a resolution condemning Iranian activity that helped destabilize Iraq and called upon the administration to take actions to deter future Iranian meddling in Iraq and other places. It is no surprise that the debate over how to handle Iran occurs very much in the shadow of the Iraq war.

Five years ago, Congress voted to give the President the authorization to go to war against Saddam Hussein based upon Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction programs. The shocking failure to uncover those so-called WMD programs and the fatally flawed manner in which the President took our Nation to war must weigh upon all of us now as we debate the right course of action against Iran.

Let me be clear from the outset: Through its refusal to halt prohibited nuclear activities in the face of multiple United Nations resolutions, its support for extremist groups across the region, and its harsh crackdown in recent months on human rights and civil society leaders, the Government of Iran has demonstrated why it should be isolated from the international community. The United States must take the lead in a concerted campaign to coerce Iran into changing course, drawing upon all facets of American power, in close coordination with friends and allies. We must always remember that while the Iranian Government may be hostile to our interests and values, it does not speak for the Iranian people. While the Iranian clerical regime, in power since the 1979 resolution, has remained reliably anti-American, the Iranian people, led by a younger generation born after the traumatic events of the last 1970s, are remarkably open to American ideals. Two-thirds of the Iranian population is below the age of 30. These Iranians view the United States as a potential friend, not as an implacable enemy.

Few Americans remember that a candlelight vigil was spontaneously organized in Tehran shortly following the 9/11 attacks, attended by thousands of ordinary Iranians to honor the memory of those who perished in those terrible attacks. I can think of no other Muslim nation where such a public expression of sympathy and solidarity emerged in the grief- stricken days following September 11. So in articulating our response to Iran's recent provocations, we must always distinguish between the oppressive clerical regime and the Iranian people.

The mullahs in Tehran would love nothing more than a perception that the United States, and the broader West, by extension, is hostile toward Iran itself. It would spark an instant boost in popularity for the regime. Accordingly, any U.S. policy to diffuse Iran's nuclear program and halt its support for extremist groups elsewhere must be undertaken in a careful fashion, emphasizing that our quarrel lies with the clerical regime, not the people of Iran.

Let me first address Iran's nuclear program. The Iranian regime has forfeited the goodwill of the international community by engaging in a secret program over the past two decades to develop the key components of a nuclear fuel cycle--uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing. These activities can constitute the elements of a peaceful civilian nuclear program, but the nuclear nonproliferation treaty to which Iran is a signatory requires that nations fully disclose such activities in an open and transparent fashion. That Iran went to such lengths to conceal its activities and continues today to refuse to provide a full accounting of the history of this program leads a reasonable observer to suspect that the program was intended not just for a civilian nuclear program but also to enable the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons.

This crisis came to a head in 2003, when reports from an Iranian exile group prompted the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, to open an investigation. Despite initial efforts by an alliance of European powers to persuade Iran to come clean with the IAEA, Tehran continued to work on its uranium enrichment program, spurning offers of economic and trade benefits.

Last year the United Nations Security Council took action, passing an initial resolution calling upon Iran to suspend all uranium enrichment activities. Iran ignored that resolution. The Security Council passed two successive resolutions imposing a set of limited sanctions. Yet again, the Iranian regime chose to ignore a clear message from the international community. Today the United States is in talks with other U.N. Security Council members on a third and potentially more far- ranging round of sanctions. To its credit, the Bush administration has made very clear to Iran that the United States is willing to join a comprehensive dialog with Iran and the so-called EU-3 nations--meaning the United Kingdom, France, and Germany--once Iran verifiably suspends its uranium enrichment activities. Iran has refused to do so, and so it is on pace to operate as many as 3,000 uranium centrifuges by the end of the year. Under a worst-case estimate, if Iran were to eject all international inspectors and operate these 3,000 centrifuges around the clock, it could produce sufficient fissile material for one nuclear warhead within a year.

An armed Iran that has a nuclear weapon or nuclear weapons would be emboldened to intimidate its neighbors, export Islamic extremism throughout the region, and deter the United States and others from defending their core interests. A regime with leaders who have openly called for the destruction of the State of Israel by ``wiping it'' off the face of the Earth cannot be allowed to possess the means to achieve that goal. Furthermore, we cannot abide the risk, however small, that a nuclear Iran may one day decide to share its nuclear technology and material with a client terrorist group such as Hamas or Hezbollah.

Iran's nuclear program also poses a genuine danger to the future of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, so-called NPT, an agreement that has helped prevent the nightmare vision of President Kennedy of a world with 20 nuclear powers from coming to fruition. The NPT is based upon a fundamental premise. A nonnuclear weapon state is entitled to a civilian nuclear program in exchange for committing to verification and inspections to ensure it does not produce nuclear weapons. Yet Iran threatens to demonstrate a backdoor option for future nuclear aspirants. Here is what it is: build a civilian program, with a complete nuclear fuel cycle, in open view to acquire the basic knowledge to produce nuclear fissile material.

After achieving that goal, a nation can then withdraw from the NPT and, utilizing the knowledge gained from its civilian program, build nuclear weapons. This so-called virtual nuclear weapon threatens to undermine the NPT and lead to a world where multiple states are poised on the thin line between civilian nuclear power and weapons programs. For that reason, the international community must demonstrate a united front to compel Iran away from that path through diplomatic and economic pressure.

The threat posed by an Iranian nuclear weapon is very real. However, we cannot afford to panic and blindly accept worst-case scenarios, as we did with Iraq to such tragic ends. Iran has made great strides in its nuclear program over the past 3 years, but it must do much more if it seeks a nuclear weapon. We do not know to what extent those Iranian centrifuges already produced are operationally active and whether they have been linked together in a required ``enriched cascade.'' We do not know whether the Iranian regime has begun work on warhead design so any highly enriched uranium that may eventually be produced can be fabricated into an actual nuclear weapon.

It is those uncertainties, and the recognition that any ``crash program'' to build a nuclear weapon will encounter inevitable difficulties, that explain

why our intelligence community has judged that Iran is not likely--not likely--to acquire a nuclear weapon until the early to middle part of the next decade. This conclusion is spelled out in the most recent National Intelligence Estimate.

Based upon what the International Atomic Energy Agency has been reporting with regard to the Iranian nuclear program, and what our own intelligence community is telling us, we have time--we have time--to resolve this very complex, serious challenge. That does not mean we have the luxury to relax or postpone difficult choices, but, rather, that we can exercise a methodical approach that gradually escalates the diplomatic and economic pressure against Iran in a unified manner.

We must present a very clear choice to the Iranian regime--it is this--one that will be visible to the people of Iran: End all illicit nuclear activities, come back into compliance with IAEA safeguards, and provide full transparency. That is one choice. In return, the United States and our European partners will be prepared to return to the table and discuss potential economic and trade benefits. If Iran chooses the path of continued defiance--the path they have been on--we must show that the international community is prepared to deny Iran the benefits of the global economy, including trade in key energy products, facilitation of essential financial transactions, and investment in key economic sectors.

Iran's nuclear program is not the only threat that emanates from Tehran today. Just as critical is Iran's ongoing support for extremist movements across the region, ranging from Hamas in the Gaza Strip and Hezbollah in Lebanon to Shiite militia forces in Iraq. Unfortunately, Iran's leadership today has made the strategic decision to support these forces, promoting chaos and instability across the Middle East.

The Iranian Government has placed itself on the side of those who are undermining democratically elected governments, fomenting violence and anarchy, and contributing to attacks against U.S. forces. So long as the Iranian Government continues to bankroll and supply weapons to terrorist groups and insurgent militias, we cannot expect any semblance of constructive dialog between Tehran and Washington.

The evidence surrounding Iranian involvement in Iraq is particularly disturbing. Iran has interests in Iraq. We know that. The Shiite majority that now has power for the first time in Iraq shares vast cultural, religious, and political links with the Iranian people. However, Iran and Iraq are two different nations, and the Shiite population in Iraq does not and should not serve as a proxy for the mullahs in Tehran. When the Iranian Government provides weapons and financing to sectarian militias battling other Iraqis as well as U.S. forces in Iraq, it is only exacerbating the violence that currently plagues Iraq.

The administration in Washington, supported by our military leadership, has alleged that the Iranian Government has directly supplied insurgent groups in Iraq with mortars, rocket-propelled grenades, and, most dangerous of all, the explosive formed penetrators that have served as the most lethal of roadside bombs killing American troops.

The evidence the administration has provided--serial numbers on the weapons linking them to Iranian sources and eyewitness testimony--is compelling. It remains unclear to what degree this assistance has proceeded with the direct knowledge of Iran's senior ruling leadership. Regardless, the Iranian Government must be held responsible for all activities--all activities--emanating from its territory or carried out by its agents. Iran must work with the United States and the international community in supporting a stable Iraq and deemphasizing sectarian conflict there.

The question that we, as Senators, must answer is how best to persuade and, if necessary, compel Iran to change its behavior both in terms of its nuclear program and its support for extremist groups. What are the tools available to us to persuade Iran that its current course of action will only further isolate it from the international community? How can we promote fissures inside the Iranian regime between the hard-line elements associated with President Ahmadi-Nejad and more pragmatic figures?

I believe the United States should implement a strategy of containment to deny the Iranian regime any benefits from its nuclear program and support for extremist forces, while laying out potential-- potential--incentives if and when the regime changes its behavior. Let me be clear: Military force is always an option, but it is not an option that makes sense under the current circumstances.

Instead, the United States should pursue a three-pronged strategy against Iran's nuclear program and its support for extremist groups.

First, the United States should continue its campaign to diplomatically isolate Iran at the United Nations Security Council. The Security Council has condemned Iran's evasion and deceit of the IAEA and called on Iran, in order to restore the world's confidence in the ostensibly peaceful aims of its nuclear program, to halt all work--to halt all work--on its uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing activities.

While some may view that action as insignificant, it is important to remember that Iran never expected Russia or China--its two primary benefactors--to sign onto such resolutions. Yet the State Department has carefully brought along Moscow and Beijing at every step so that the international community is speaking in a united voice to Tehran. Today, the Iranian regime is viewed as a pariah state at the international level, with sanctions imposed by the Security Council and key officials linked to the nuclear program prohibited from international travel.

Now it is time for the United States to further isolate Iran diplomatically. Washington can encourage other nations to avoid contact with Mr. Ahmadi-Nejad, who should be shunned first and foremost for his noxious anti-Semitic remarks. The United States should propose, as one element--as one element--of the next sanctions resolution, to impose a complete prohibition on arms exports to Iran. To the extent we can make a clear linkage between Iran's defiance on its nuclear program and its further diplomatic isolation, more and more Iranians, including influential officials in the Government and military, will question the wisdom of proceeding with its nuclear program.

Second, the United States should take action in concert with other nations to apply substantial pressure on Iran's energy sector. Although Iran boasts the world's second largest oil reserves, its oil production has been falling in recent years, as its oilfields suffer from a lack of investment. More importantly, as Iran's population continues to grow by a half a million people every year, demand for oil and other energy resources is beginning to outstrip domestic supply. Iran will soon be forced to confront a choice between diverting petroleum exports to its domestic needs, thus surrendering much needed foreign currency, or facing increasing shortages at home.

There are concrete steps the Congress can take. S. 970, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, of which I am proud to serve as a cosponsor, would close existing loopholes in the Iran Sanctions Act that currently allows subsidiaries of multinational firms to escape U.S. sanctions when they invest in Iran's energy sector. I agree with Representative Tom Lantos, who has pushed forward similar legislation on the House side, when he says the ultimate U.S. goal should be zero-- zero--foreign investment in Iran's energy sector until it changes course on its nuclear program.

Iran exhibits a particular vulnerability when it comes to gasoline. It is still suffering from the after effects of the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, when much of Iran's capacity to refine gasoline was destroyed. In recent years, U.S. sanctions have limited the ability of Iran to rebuild its refining capacity through foreign investment. Accordingly, Iran is forced to import as much as 40 percent--40 percent--of its annual consumption of refined gasoline, despite its vast oil riches.

This imbalance between supply and demand for refined gasoline is exacerbated by Iran's practice of subsidizing gasoline prices for its citizens, which only artificially boosts demand. Today, Iran ensures that refined gasoline is available to Iranian citizens at the subsidized price of 38 cents per gallon. It is

no wonder, then, that Iran, early this year, was forced to take the draconian step of rationing gasoline, limiting the owners of private vehicles to no more than 26 gallons of fuel per month. This decision produced a backlash in the country, with more than 50 petrostations in Iran burned to the ground by angry mobs and plummeting support for the Iranian President, who largely ascended to power in 2005 on the basis of his promise to improve Iran's economy.

Iran's growing shortages of refined gasoline is a golden opportunity for the international community as it tightens the screws on Iran's leadership.

The average Iranian will question why Iran's leadership continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program at the cost of gasoline shortages and economic unrest. For that reason, I am working on legislation to expand the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act to crack down on all foreign exports of refined gasoline products to Iran until the leadership there changes course on its nuclear program.

I wish to now go to the third and final pillar of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to coerce Iran into ending its defiance of the international community.

Yes.

If I could have about 3\1/2\ to 4 more minutes.

I thank the Senator.

The third pillar, just like the first two, should be to take prudent steps in this strategy.

The third and final pillar of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to coerce Iran into ending its defiance of the international community is to lay the groundwork for financial sanctions that make it increasingly difficult for Iranian companies and banks to do business with the global economy. The steps taken by the Treasury Department under the leadership of Secretary Paulson and his deputy, Stuart Levey, are a good first step. Utilizing existing U.S. law, such as the Patriot Act, the Treasury Department has convinced a series of major financial institutions in Western Europe and Asia to suspend business with Iranian financial institutions such as Bank Saderat and Bank Sepah by cutting off the access of these institutions to the U.S. financial system. The United States can pursue these measures outside the United Nations Security Council, as they involve U.S. laws and regulations. As a result, Iranian firms are increasingly forced to finance their transactions in Euros, not dollars, and find that conducting routine financial transactions to be more difficult and costly. Once again, we must demonstrate to the average Iranian that they are the ones who pay a price for the unwise decisions of the Iranian regime--which will only serve to heighten domestic unrest and dissatisfaction with the regime's current course.

It is for this reason I am so pleased to cosponsor the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, introduced by my colleagues Senators Obama and Brownback. This legislation would call upon the Treasury Department to publicly identify all companies that invest in a minimum level of funds in the Iranian economy, giving pension funds and individual investors an informed choice on whether to continue to direct funds to those firms that do business with Iran. In addition, the legislation would grant unfettered legal authority to State and local governments to divest their investment holdings of any such firms that do business in Iran. If the State of Pennsylvania, for example, wishes to wash its hands clean of any firms that directly or indirectly support Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, this legislation ensures that it can do so free from any lawsuits.

I wish to conclude this statement by briefly discussing what we should not do. If we are to convince the Iranian regime that a nuclear weapons program and support for extremist groups are not in their best interests, then we should strive to remove any plausible excuse they have for engaging in such behavior. That means the United States should de-emphasize the threat of regime change. When people associated with the Vice President drop hints on their desire to overthrow the Iranian regime and the advantages of using military force, they only reinforce a strong nationalist streak within Iran and serve to rally the Iranian people around an otherwise unpopular government.

The Iranian people rightly aspire for democratic change. To the extent that the U.S. Government can support such aspirations in an effective manner, we should do so through quiet assistance to forces promoting civil society and the rule of law inside Iran. People-to- people exchanges can help bring young Iranians to the United States and demonstrate the benefits of a democratic culture and a government informed by the consent of the people. Credible public diplomacy, including the transmission of accurate and unbiased news into Iran, is another necessary pillar. But, as Iraq has so painfully taught us, imposing democracy at the spear of bayonet is not a realistic option, especially when our military is already so overstretched.

So the United States should talk less about regime change and talk more about behavior change when it comes to Iran. We should make clear that Washington is prepared to engage an Iran that ends its illicit nuclear activities and ceases support for Hamas, Hezbollah, insurgent forces in Iraq, and other extremist groups across the region. Laying out a credible choice to the Iranian regime represents our best hope for defusing the crisis over Iran's nuclear program and persuading Iran to end its support for antidemocratic groups throughout the Middle East.

The tentative success achieved in North Korea gives us a model for which to aspire. During the President's first term, his administration raised the desirability of regime change in Pyongyang at every opportunity. Since 2005, under the leadership of Assistant Secretary Chris Hill, the United States has substituted patient diplomacy for fiery rhetoric and we may finally achieve real success in containing and rolling back North Korea's nuclear program.

Iran today represents one of the greatest national security challenges to the United States. It is incumbent that we respond to this threat with hardheaded diplomacy and an appropriate set of financial sanctions to squeeze the Iranian economy, putting aside for now ill-advised talk of hasty military action. Iran's leaders must be presented with a fundamental choice: end your defiance of the international community or face growing isolation.

I think we have an opportunity to get this policy right, but this will require bipartisan work. It will require cooperation in this body and the other body, and it will require the administration to work with the Congress to get this policy right. We cannot afford to get our Iranian policy wrong and make the same mistakes we made--this country made--leading up to the war in Iraq. So for that reason and all of the reasons I outlined in my statement, it is imperative that we do this carefully and thoughtfully to get this policy right, to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear capability which threatens the Middle East and threatens the United States and threatens the entire world.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I might consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this measure, but with great reservations that this weak legislation will send a message to our enemies of a weakened U.S. position on the issue of Iran.

The Iranian threat to the United States, to our allies and to our interests could not be more apparent. Only last week the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency warned that Iran is probably carrying out secret nuclear activities. Then last Saturday the lead inspector for the Middle East shared with member nations of the IAEA extensive documentation of an Iranian effort to reconfigure the Shahab- 3 long-range missile to carry a nuclear warhead. The range of these missiles reach Israel and most of the Middle East.

And this is a regime whose current leader, Ahmadinejad, has consistently called for the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel.

On October 26, 2005, at the World Without Zionism Conference in Tehran, the Iranian leader called for Israel to be ``wiped off the map,'' described Israel as ``a disgraceful blot on the face of the Islamic world'' and declared that ``anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.'' Then on December 12, 2006, he addressed a conference in Tehran questioning the historical veracity of the Holocaust and said that Israel, again, would ``soon be wiped out.''

On Israel's 60th birthday, Ahmadinejad gave a speech in which, according to the official Iranian news agency, he stated that Israel was ``on its way to total destruction.''

In a public address which aired on the Iranian news channel on June 2 of this year, Ahmadinejad again called this ``worm of corruption'' in reference to Israel, to be wiped off. He further stated that while ``some say the ideal of Greater Israel has expired, I say the idea of lesser Israel has expired too.'' And earlier this week at the United Nations, he continued to invoke anti-Israel and anti-Semitic canards when he stated ``the dignity, integrity and rights of the European and American people are being played with by a small but deceitful number of people call Zionists. These nations are spending their dignity and resources on the crimes and the occupations and the threats of the Zionist network against their will.''

But the threat is not just to our friend Israel. Iran is currently working on even longer-range missiles directly threatening critical U.S. interests. The importance and the urgency of strengthened sanctions was underlined just a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, when the European Union warned that Iran was approaching a nuclear weapons capability. The significance stems from the fact that the European Union has long insisted that the West and other countries focus their efforts on diplomacy to persuade Iran to suspend its nuclear program.

This is an acknowledgment that a strategy based on holding out an olive branch and engaging directly with the Iranian regime, while promising trade agreements and other benefits, has not worked and that more concrete economic pressure is needed to compel a change in regimes' behavior. Thus the evidence before us makes it clear that we must act quickly to impose the greatest pressure possible on the regime and its enablers.

Unfortunately, this bill does not do quite that, Mr. Speaker. My colleagues, you all know where I stand on Iran. Last Congress I authored the Iran Freedom Support Act which contained very tough and quite focused sanctions on the regime in Tehran. Our beloved late former chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Tom Lantos, was the lead Democrat cosponsor, and the bill enjoyed the support of our current chairman, Howard Berman, my good friend, and 360 Members of the House.

The Iran Freedom Support Act was enacted into law 2 years ago almost to the day on September 30. Then when Chairman Lantos approached me last year and asked that I serve as the lead Republican cosponsor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007, I immediately agreed because H.R. 1400 truly does strengthen U.S. law and does tighten the economic noose around the regime's elites in Iran.

H.R. 1400 passed the House a year ago yesterday, September 25, 2007, by a vote of 397 in favor and only 16 against. Yet it has been stalled in the Senate all this time. Then we have Senate bill 970 which currently has the support of 73 Senators. However, action on these stronger bills was not to be. Instead, we have a bill which refers to certain sanctions already in place, and they call them ``new'' sanctions, and then refers to a handful of other important ones while providing a meager ``national interest waiver.''

What does this mean in practice, Mr. Speaker? The next President doesn't have to worry about actually implementing or applying these sanctions, as a ``national interest waiver'' has been easily justified by consecutive administrations to avoid implementing U.S. laws concerning state sponsors of terrorism, like Iran.

So rather than strengthening the sanctions structure, rather than limiting the President's flexibility, as we did 2 years ago in the Iran Freedom Support Act on proliferation-related sanctions by removing the waiver and on the Iran Sanctions Act by raising the threshold to ``vital to the national security interests of the United States,'' the bill before us provides the weakest possible threshold.

I do not fault my good friend, Chairman Berman. I commend the chairman for his efforts. He is in a difficult situation, and this is as strong a bill as some of his colleagues will allow the House or the Senate to act on.

This bill is like one of the weak Iran resolutions that the United Nations Security Council keeps passing that allows Russia and China and others to go along with because they do nothing. In fact, just today, the U.N. Security Council moved a measure that contained no new sanctions but said that other Security Council resolutions on Iran are legally binding and must be carried out. That is almost exactly what the bill before us is going to do on the issue of sanctions.

Again, I do not understand why, at a time when the Iranian regime is crystal clear in accelerating its efforts to acquire a nuclear weapon, that we are not considering the Lantos Iran Counter-Proliferation Act or Senate bill 970.

Notably, this body has not even considered the Ackerman-Pence resolution, which has 275 cosponsors and is a strong, unequivocal message to the regime.

Yet, Mr. Speaker, despite the many deficiencies of this bill, I want to thank my friend, Chairman Berman, for adding a Rule of Construction to his version of the Dodd bill which states, ``nothing in this Act shall be construed as affecting in any way any provision of the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006, Public Law 109-293.''

Since the legislation retains a ``notwithstanding'' clause for section 103, I hope that the Rule of Construction will be sufficient to prevent the unraveling

of sanctions codified 2 years ago. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, portions of section 104 are essentially a repetition of current law as section 2(f) of the Executive Order 13059 codified.

In this respect, Chairman Berman, I would appreciate or his substitute, Mr. Ackerman, clarification that the waiver in section 104 would not apply to sanctions already in place, even if these have been restated in the legislation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the reporting requirements have been strengthened with respect to investments in Iran's energy sector since January 1 of this year. However, I ask to add language to the bill before us that would amend current law and force a determination on whether foreign investments in Iran's energy sector violate the Iran Sanctions Act and whether sanctions should be implemented. My proposal was not limited to the last 9 months of activity or to simply reporting requirements. But this modification was not incorporated in the text that we are considering today.

Looking to other sections of this House version of the Dodd bill, there are provisions seeking to prevent the export or trans-shipment of U.S.-origin goods to Iran. Except for the language calling for the designation of a country as a Destination of Possible Diversion Concern, this bill duplicates most existing laws and regulations on these issues, as well as current U.S. Government programs. It does provide for the application of licensing controls to the countries designated, but immediately affords yet another mere ``national interest waiver.''

There are also stronger bills pending on the issue of trans-shipment, such as H.R. 6178, the Security Through Termination of Proliferation Act, or the STOP Act. And I hope that we can work together to move that legislation in the next Congress.

My good friend, Howard Berman, shares with me concerns about trans- shipment and diversion of sensitive materials and technology to Iran. We articulated them in our letter of February 5, 2008, a letter to Admiral McConnell, the Director of National Intelligence, raising these and many other vital issues.

Mr. Speaker, also on this issue I recently wrote to my chairman, Howard Berman, asking for greater scrutiny of foreign military financing, foreign military sales and direct commercial sales to countries that are a trans-shipment concern for U.S.-origin goods to Iran.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, despite my grave, serious and repeated reservations about this weak bill, I will vote for it, and I hope that the Iranian regime and its enablers do not see this as a sign of weakness on our part.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Foreign Affairs,

Washington, DC, February 5, 2008.

Hon. J. Michael McConnell,

Director of National Intelligence, Office of the Director of

National Intelligence, Washington, DC.

Dear Admiral McConnell: We are writing to request an

assessment of the export control regime in the United Arab

Emirates (UAE), especially its effectiveness in preventing

the export or transshipment of U.S.-origin goods to Iran. We

are also interested in receiving information regarding

broader efforts to implement U.S. sanctions against Iran.

As you are aware, Iran is the one of the UAE's largest

trade partners. The UAE is also a world leader in the

transshipments of goods from other countries, including the

United States. We are concerned by reports that the

international sanctions against Iran are being undermined by

inadequate end-use controls in the UAE. Obviously, an

effective export, re-export, and transshipment control regime

in the UAE is a prerequisite to that country's ability to

control transshipment of sensitive goods through its ports.

To enable the House Foreign Affairs Committee to better

understand this issue, we request that you provide an

assessment of the effectiveness of the UAE's existing export

control regime and a translated copy of the DAE's new export

control legislation. Among other subjects, the assessment

should address overall effectiveness, obstacles to

implementation, the extent to which the UAE has complied with

U.S. requests to interdict and prevent shipments of concern,

and the attitudes and records of specific UAE officials

toward preventing exports or transshipments of items of

proliferation concern to Iran or Iranian-controlled entities.

Additionally, we request that you provide the following

information pertaining to broader U.S. efforts: the amount of

goods seized, penalties imposed, and convictions obtained by

U.S. authorities under the trade ban; the type and amount of

U.S. sensitive items diverted to Iran through all

transshipment points; the extent to which all repeat

violators of U.S. Iran-specific sanctions laws have ended

their sales of sensitive items to Iran; the total amount of

assets frozen due to financial sanctions implemented by both

the United States and other nations; and the total impact of

U.S. bilateral sanctions on foreign investment in Iran's

energy sector.

This assessment may be in classified form.

Thank you for your attention to our request.

Sincerely,

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen,

Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Edward R. Royce,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation

and Trade.

Mike Pence,

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Middle East and South

Asia.

Tom Lantos,

Chairman, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Howard L. Berman,

Senior Member, House Foreign Affairs Committee.

I continue to reserve, Mr. Speaker.

I reserve my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield myself such time as I may consume.

I would like to point out that the reports that we are getting about the threat of a nuclear-powered Iran are coming from all corners of the world, and I would like to read just segments of the online edition of The Jerusalem Post posted by Herb Keinon. It says, ``Military Intelligence: Iran Halfway to First Nuclear Bomb.'' It reads, ``Iran is halfway to a nuclear bomb, and Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria are using this period of relative calm to significantly rearm.''

This is according to the Head of Research from the Israeli Military Intelligence, and that is the information that he gave and he shared with members of the Israeli Cabinet and the Israeli Parliament on September 21st, in the Knesset. He said there was a growing gap between Iran's progress on the nuclear front and the determination of the West to stop it. A growing gap. Iran gets closer, our determination is stopped. Iran is concentrating on uranium enrichment and is making progress.

He noted that they have improved the function of their 4,000 centrifuges. According to this military intelligence head of research, Iranian centrifuges have so far produced between one-third to one-half of the enriched material that is needed to build a nuclear bomb. The time that they will have crossed the nuclear point of no return is fast approaching.

Although he stopped short of giving a firm deadline, last week in the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, he put the date at 2011. Tick tock, the clock is ticking. He said that their confidence is growing with the thought that the international community is not strong enough to stop them. He said that the Iranians were playing for time and that time was working in their favor because the longer the process dragged on, the wider the riffs appearing among the countries in the west, then Iran is in control of the technology and continues to move forward with determination toward a nuclear bomb.

In addition to their nuclear efforts, Iranians were also deepening their influence throughout the region, because they are cooperating with Syria. They are cooperating with the Palestinian terrorist organization, as well as being the main arms supplier to another terrorist group, Hezbollah.

While I appreciate the intentions of my good friend, Chairman Berman, this bill does fall far short of the type of comprehensive sanctions that would truly cripple the Iranian economy, which is dependent on investments in its energy sector. Setting aside the weakness of the bill regarding the U.S. direct sanctions on the regime, it does nothing tangible to force the executive branch's hand to fully implement the Iran Sanctions Act.

It could have, but language to include an automatic trigger for a determination of sanctions was not in place in this bill, and it was not to be. This bill had great promise. It does deliver on some of those promises. I wish that it could have gone further, but I hope that my colleagues will adopt this important bill tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. President, it is no secret that Africa has not been high on Congress's priority list historically. This is due to a number of reasons including that African issues have not generated the same kind of public passion and constituent attention as closer-to-home subjects like health care or education. But this is beginning to change. Interest in Africa is at its highest level in recent memory-- perhaps ever.

I am concerned, however, that because the bulk of this attention is focused on humanitarian tragedies and grave violence we are depicting a continent caught in a downward spiral, which offers little motivation for long-term U.S. engagement. Funding relief efforts in response to crises--while an important element of U.S. policy--does not address fundamental issues such as the development of democratic institutions and civil society, good governance, security and justice sector reform, and regional security arrangements. We must provide more focus on these underlying concerns--and to do so requires consistent, long-term engagement, collaboration, and commitment from national governments, regional and international organizations and, of course, bilateral donors like the United States.

Sporadic engagement that is devoid of a long- term strategy is like sticking a band aid on a gaping wound instead of taking a trip to the hospital. The abundant potential that exists in so many parts of Africa, and which the United States and others should be more actively promoting, is being stalled or even undermined by our quick-fix approach to problem-solving on the continent. Without identifying and developing the possibilities for more serious engagement, we may end up doing more harm than good.

At the end of our August recess I traveled to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda, two countries that have made impressive gains since I was last there 7 years ago. But today I want to talk about the Democratic Republic of Congo primarily, because the situation is gravely deteriorating and urgent steps much be taken to stop it from devolving further and threatening the region writ large.

Last year's historic elections in the DRC injected hopeful momentum into the war-torn country, thanks in large part to generous funding from the U.S. and others and with critical support from a strong United Nations peacekeeping mission--the largest in fact in the world. During my visit, however, I was troubled to learn of the new government's failure to consolidate and build upon this historic progress. A lack of capacity, political will, and democratic experience is reversing early gains and increasingly destabilizing an already fragile political situation. The local population is growing disenchanted with the government's inability to follow through on its election promises as decisions on key issues--including those on decentralization and the illegal exploitation of natural resources--are slow-rolled.

One of the first promises President Kabila made after his election was to restore order in the war-ravaged provinces of his country. But violence in eastern DRC has only gotten worse in recent months, not better. More than 120,000 people--many of whom voted in favor of Kabila--have been forced from their homes because of increased fighting, with little attention or assistance from the capital.

There is no easy solution to the rapidly unfolding conflict in the restive east, but it is clear that the underlying drivers for this continued violence must be addressed at the same time that the more immediate emergency needs are dealt with.

On my trip, I visited a camp for internally displaced in eastern DRC. One Congolese man, living in a camp nestled in the rolling hills outside Goma spoke for many others when he told me: We want to restart our normal agricultural work and resume our lives. We want it to be stable enough so we can do that.

I met with a group of displaced Congolese women who had been sexually abused and in many cases raped. Extreme sexual violence and rape in the DRC is so pervasive because it is committed by all actors and with little consequence. Sadly, afraid I am afraid it is not getting any better. Just 2 days after I left, tens of thousands more civilians were forced to flee their homes because of renewed fighting between the Congolese army and dissident General Laurent Nkunda's rebel forces, whose ammunition, weapons, and fighters are likely supplied by Rwanda.

In early September, U.N. peacekeepers secured an informal, and I might add, already violated truce between the government and a main rebel leader. The U.N. Security Council has appealed for more dialogue between the two warring parties but this appeal needs to be significantly amplified and backed by incentives for peace. Neighboring countries--and particularly Rwanda--need to be part of this conversation, to ensure the current situation does not worsen while also effectively addressing longstanding regional tensions.

In contrast, on a recent trip to Uganda, the U.S. Assistant Secretary for African Affairs signaled that the U.S. would support regional efforts for a more militarized policy towards all rebel groups. In fact Assistant Secretary Frazer said: We feel we have the basis to assist in efforts to mop up the LRA and to get them out of Congo, out of Garamba Park. And so we will not sit still and just let them live in Garamba Park and cultivate land and kill animals. This is not the time to start talking about our support for a military solution to these conflicts.

Instead, we should seek to build upon current diplomatic initiatives--both in the region as well as at New York last week at the opening of the U.N. General Assembly.

We should work to expand existing forums such as the Tripartite Plus Commission to become genuine opportunities for political solutions. The United States, a proud champion of building strong and independent institutions that create the space for lively debate and discussion, should be advocating for enriched dialogue and diplomacy to address the entrenched problems that have allowed these conflicts to fester--or worsen. We should not be

encouraging military operations if there are other legitimate avenues open--or if they have not yet been explored. Military action should be the path of last resort, period.

The Great Lakes region is at a critical moment in its history and we run the risk of contributing to events that could have far-reaching and long-term repercussions if we do not engage responsibly. With its vast resources, the DRC could be an anchor of stability in an area that has been plagued by violence and destructive activity for decades. The changing nature of global threats could render sub-Saharan Africa--and the Great Lakes region in particular--ripe for exploitation by any number of rogue actors. We can stop this before it begins if we work to ensure stability for the long term.

Our National Security Strategy states:

We will work with others for an African continent that

lives in liberty, peace, and growing prosperity.

We must help strengthen Africa's fragile states and help build indigenous capability secure porous border.

I know the United States has many priorities that compete for attention and resources, but if done right, and as part of a comprehensive long-term strategy, a little can go a long way towards achieving these lofty goals in Africa. The United States should increase engagement in and expand assistance to the eastern DRC.

We should work in concert with other allies and press all regional governments--and in particular Rwanda--to adopt a renewed focus on a political solution for peace. It must be clear that the United States supports peaceful conflict resolution, and that we are not a war-mongering country that prioritizes quick military fixes over more protracted, but also more likely to be sustainable, political dialogues.

First, we must increase our support for the DRC's security sector reform initiatives by working with the Congolese government to downsize, discipline, and further transform its military. The national army must no longer be allowed to commit grave human rights abuses with abandon as this only contributes to the rampant impunity and public legitimacy deficit indicative of a weak state. Justice sector reform, within and outside the security sector, is essential in this regard.

Second, while Ambassador Bill Swing is doing an incredible job in the DRC as the Secretary General's special representative, we must augment diplomatic attention to the east part of the country by calling for the appointment of a U.N. special envoy who will work in conjunction with the current special envoy for northern Uganda--former Mozambique President Chissano. Such an initiative will jump start a regional process for political engagement that can help to reverse the current deterioration and work towards resolving longstanding grievances between a number of actors in the region. Time and time again on my recent trip I was pleased to learn of the credibility and integrity President Chissano has injected into the northern Uganda peace process; we need to see the same thing for eastern Congo.

Third, we need to significantly augment U.S. government efforts in the region. The U.S. government needs to be fully engaged to bring about stability in eastern Congo and to establish conditions for a sustainable peace throughout the region. The dearth of U.S. personnel in the DRC means we have little choice but to outsource our diplomacy to others, which should not become the norm. In the face of a steadily increasing conflict that could ignite tensions throughout the region, we should be looking to robustly increase our on-the-ground presence before it is too late.

It is the grim truth that our mission in Kinshasa is not equipped to handle the looming instability in the east and that we are limited in our engagement because we have no diplomatic presence in the conflict- affected areas.

I do not wish to insinuate that this is due to lack of interest, concern, or dedication from the committed embassy team we have on the ground in Kinshasa. On the contrary, I got to know those individuals on my recent visit and was very impressed with both their capacity and resourcefulness with the limited means available to them. It is because of this administration's myopic focus elsewhere that we are not adequately able to respond in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo.

As a first step, the Secretary of State should dispatch a ``booster'' team to help prepare the embassy to deal with the diplomatic, humanitarian, and security work needed in order to exercise our influence and to participate in a broader international effort to prevent eastern DRC from deteriorating into complete chaos. At the same time, we need to begin looking at serious infrastructure change that will enable our front line diplomats to have the resources and flexibility they need not just in Africa, but throughout the world.

The United States has much to offer beyond public statements to ensure that violence in the DRC does not escalate further and that those who have been displaced can look forward to returning home sooner rather than later.

We in Congress need to send a strong signal that we are not going to turn a blind eye to the deteriorating situation in the east--or to the administration's inadequate response. In eastern DRC, as in other parts of Africa, we must take steps today to promote political solutions that truly address the underlying causes of conflict, or else we will be grappling with these vicious crises for years to come.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business for up to 20 minutes.

Mr. President, let me begin by saying that Senator Bennett and I are thrilled to be able to welcome Senator Stabenow to this bipartisan coalition, the first bipartisan coalition in 13 years that has been designed to try to finally fix American health care and ensure that all of our citizens have good quality affordable coverage.

Four Senators joined us this week. I want to say just a little bit about each one of them. First, Senator Stabenow has put decades into this cause of improving health care. Again and again, she has spoken for seniors, for kids, for holding down costs, for prevention. We sit right next to each other in the Senate Finance Committee. And to have Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley who have pulled out all of the stops once again to try to bring together a bipartisan coalition for our children, when I think about having Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley join those of us in this coalition and to have their support in the Senate Finance Committee, this is an enormously important day.

As Senator Stabenow said, she represents constituents facing one of the great challenges in American health care; that is, how to make the transition for so many of our key workers and companies in basic industries. When you open a business today in the State of Michigan or Montana or Oregon or anywhere else, you spot your foreign competition about 18 percentage points the day you open your doors. Those businesses in our States see premiums go up 10, 12, 14 percent a year. And they are competing in global markets against people who have State- funded health care.

So as Senator Stabenow has said, and as we have seen just in the last couple of weeks with the new UAW agreement, there is going to be change in the air. The question is how we shape it. And to have people such as Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley, who have been leaders for years and years in this cause, it is of enormous benefit.

Senator Bennett and I are very appreciative. We are also glad to have Senators Landrieu and Coleman join us. Senator Landrieu, of course, is wrestling with the great challenge of how to reform health care in the State of Louisiana. She has looked at a number of innovative reforms that we support.

Senator Coleman, coming from Minnesota, which has been a huge tech center that has contributed to an area that Senator Stabenow has a great interest in, which is health information technology--Senator Coleman's involvement will be very helpful as well.

It seems to me this Congress has the chance to deliver a bipartisan one-two punch for health care this year. Punch No. 1 is to try to make sure our kids are covered. Americans are watching the back and forth between the Congress and the President with respect to children's health care.

Clearly, it is a moral abomination that so many of our youngsters in America do not have health care. The American people want action. They cannot understand the bickerfest going on in Washington, DC, over this issue.

I am very hopeful that the White House will continue to work, pick up on the model set out by Senator Grassley and Senator Hatch, working with Senator Baucus and Senator Rockefeller, and we will resolve this issue quickly.

It is clear to me that covering kids is a moral issue, but it is also a financial issue. If these youngsters do not get good health care, America plays catch-up ball for years and years in the aftermath. Because they cannot get the preventative services they need, they pick up illnesses, and we are already seeing the great problems with childhood obesity and chronic illnesses setting in at a very early age.

So punch No. 1 is covering the kids, and punch No. 2, as Senator Stabenow suggested, is moving on to the broader reform issue of making sure all Americans have quality, affordable coverage. What is promising about this period that we have not had in the past is that both Republicans and Democrats have been willing to search for common ground.

In our conversations, Senator Bennett, Senator Grassley, and I, and others, have talked about the need to cover everybody. Certainly, back in 1993, that was something that was a bit of a show stopper. People said: You cannot afford it. Today, many Republicans share the view of Senator Stabenow and myself that the country cannot afford not to cover everybody because what happens today is people who are uninsured shift their bills to people who are insured, and not only do they shift the bills, they shift the most expensive bills: those hospital emergency room bills and expensive treatment bills for acute illnesses.

So I very much credit Republicans such as Senators Bennett and Grassley and Gregg and all of those who have joined us from the other side of the aisle by being willing to search for common ground around the proposition of getting everybody covered.

But Democrats have also been willing to look at new approaches to make sure we could address this issue in a bipartisan way. Senator Stabenow has said the Healthy Americans Act focuses on a private delivery system, a private delivery system which is, of course, what we enjoy. When we all go home, we go home to Montana or Michigan, and everyone says: We would like coverage like you people have back in the Congress.

Well, we have private coverage. I have a Blue Cross card in my pocket. A couple of Wyden twins in a few weeks are going to get their health care through that Blue Cross card. Nancy is at home in Oregon, and we are going to have those kids in a few weeks. They are going to be covered with private health insurance.

So we want to make sure everyone in this country has private choices like Members of Congress have. As Senator Stabenow has mentioned, Democrats who might have said, well, we ought to be looking at a Government program, are willing to reach out and work with Republicans to say: If we can cover everybody, if we can get everybody in America good, quality, affordable coverage, we are willing to make sure there are private choices, which is something our colleagues on the Republican side have talked about as well. We also have responsible ways to pay for this program that covers all Americans.

As the Lewin Group has indicated--and the report is on our Web site so folks can see it--by redirecting the

money in the Tax Code, which now disproportionately favors the most affluent and rewards inefficiency, you get substantial funds in order to pay for the transition to a program that covers everybody.

Why in the world would we want to continue to say, if you are a high- flying CEO, you can go out and get a designer smile put on our face and write the cost of that off your taxes, while a woman of modest means at the neighborhood furniture store, with no employer coverage, gets virtually nothing out of the Tax Code. So Senator Stabenow and Senator Grassley and Senator Bennett and the other co-sponsors and I are going to work to redirect that Tax Code money to the people in the middle- income brackets and the lower middle-income brackets so we make better use of that money, which now is well over $200 billion.

We are also going to create, in our effort, significant administrative savings. We are going to get some, as Senators Stabenow and Whitehouse and others have talked about, through better use of health information technology. I support that. We are also going to get the savings, as the Lewin Group reported in looking at our legislation, by making sure that after you sign up once under the Healthy Americans Act, you are not going to have to go through a sign-up ever again if you wish.

From that point on, everything will work through the world of electronic transfers. And all of those folks who are low income, on Medicaid, who have to dive through all of these different boxes in order to be eligible, they will get choices like Members of Congress have. And once they sign up, they are done. No more dehumanizing, wasteful kinds of programs where you have to sign up again and again and again. And you waste money and take dollars that ought to go, as Senator Stabenow has talked about, to make sure that every poor person does not fall between the cracks of the American health care system.

Our coalition is going to be talking a fair amount about this effort on the floor of the Senate in the days ahead. We now have nine Senators as part of this effort. We are going to be talking about the ways this proposal modernizes the health system and how we make the changes from what we have today to what we will have in the future.

One other area that I would like to just touch on briefly is that I think under the Healthy Americans Act we can respond to something that Americans are talking about all over this country; that is, making the health care system portable. Right now, so many folks are pretty much locked in their jobs and just hoping that their employer is not going to find health coverage unaffordable in the days ahead.

I cannot tell you how many times people in their late fifties have come to me and said: Ron, I just hope my employer can hang on until I am 65 and I will be eligible for Medicare. We ought to make coverage portable so that if you change your job, in Michigan or Montana or anywhere else, your health care coverage goes with you.

Andy Stern, the President of the Service Employees Union, points out that the typical worker today changes jobs about eight times by the time they are 35. Let's come up with a system that ensures coverage is portable, and that even if you fall on hard times, even if you lose your job, even if your company goes down, you are in a position to take good, quality, affordable coverage--with choices like we have in Congress--with you.

I see a number of colleagues on the Senate floor. I think I would just like to wrap up by expressing my appreciation to Senator Stabenow for coming today. She has appropriately singled out Senator Grassley as well. I want to thank all of the members of our coalition. Health reform is a top issue. Everybody remembers what happened in 1993 and all of the ads and the shrill rhetoric.

It seemed every time you turned around in 1993, the decibel level went up and up. Now what we are seeing, as Senator Stabenow touched on, is a group of Senators coming together on a bipartisan basis who want to roll up their sleeves, take out a sharp pencil, and go to work. This is going to be a lot of work. If Senator Stabenow and I got 100 Members of the Senate to be cosponsors of the Healthy Americans Act today, it would still be a lot of work because we are going to have to look at a variety of issues and walk the country through all of these choices, through hearings and town meetings and forums, so we can pick up on all of the wisdom and suggestions that are out there across this land. But we are making a very important start. We have received a huge boost this week with the four additional Senators who have joined us.

To my friend from Michigan, for all her knowledge and passion and years of effort, I want her to know how much I am looking forward to teaming up with her on this issue in the Finance Committee.

I yield the floor.