Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the United Nations General Assembly. Today, as President Bush prepares to speak before the United Nations General Assembly, we are reminded both of the great potential of American leadership to enhance global security and prosperity and, tragically, of how much ground we have lost in recent years in fulfilling that potential. That ground can only be regained with new, bold, and visionary American leadership that acknowledges past mistakes, embodies and embraces change, and unifies our country to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

America has surmounted far greater hurdles before, renewing itself and leading the world towards shared security and common progress. That is the story of the founding of the United Nations. Its original architect, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, died weeks before the U.N.'s inaugural meeting in San Francisco. Roosevelt never had the opportunity to address the U.N. General Assembly, but his legacy speaks volumes. As American power reached new heights and Allied forces swept across Europe and the Pacific islands to free the world from tyranny, Roosevelt laid the foundations for a new era of collective security by creating a new institution that aimed to guarantee the peace and protect the basic rights of all human beings.

Stalin's obstruction created stalemate in the United Nations, but the United States was not deterred. American presidents created new institutions, like NATO, and encouraged others, including the European Economic Community, to advance the principles and mandate of the U.N. Charter. In the decades that followed, the United States led and listened, gained by being generous, and ultimately prevailed in the struggle with totalitarianism.

Today, it is fashionable in some circles to bash the United Nations. This is all too easy to do, but it is also short-sighted and self- defeating. The United Nations is, we should recall, an American creation. It is also a commonsense vehicle to share global burdens and costs. Despite its evident flaws and failings, the U.N. remains essential to advancing U.S. interests, enhancing global security, spurring development, and providing food, medicine, and life-saving assistance to the world's most needy every day.

The U.N.'s work in development addresses the dire needs of 1 billion people living in extreme poverty. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that prepares and monitors elections in more than 30 countries and assists fragile new democracies. It is the U.N., funded in

part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that feeds the famished and shelters 20 million refugees fleeing conflict and natural disaster. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that has convened the world's leaders on the urgent issue of climate change. It is the U.N., funded in part by the generosity of America's taxpayers, that strengthens global health and has helped reduce child mortality to its lowest level in history.

Today, the U.N. has more peacekeepers than ever--over 100,000-- deployed in 18 missions around the world. Only a small handful are Americans. Since September 11, 2001, more than 700 men and women have lost their lives serving on U.N. peace operations to protect fragile post-conflict transitions in the Great Lakes region of Africa, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Haiti, Sudan, and elsewhere. We should not forget that one of the first terrorist attacks in Iraq targeted the U.N. compound in August of 2003 and resulted in the murder of 22 people, including U.N. Envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello.

No country has a greater stake in a strong United Nations than the United States. That is why it is particularly painful when the U.N. falls short not only of its potential but also of the principles expressed in the U.N. Charter. All too often, member states use U.N. processes as a means to avoid action rather than a means to solve problems. In recent years, U.N. member states have failed to act swiftly or decisively to end the genocide in Darfur.

The Human Rights Council has passed nine resolutions condemning Israel, a democracy with higher standards of human rights than its accusers, but none condemning any other country. The Council has dropped investigations into Belarus and Cuba for political reasons, and its method of reporting on human rights allows the Council's members to shield themselves from scrutiny. The oil-for-food scandal revealed the extent of corruption in the institution and the extent of member states' willingness to tolerate it. Although U.N. operations are often greeted as legitimate, their inefficiencies or misdeeds can turn local people against them.

Progress and renewal will come from reform, not neglect. In the 1940s, the international community with American leadership created the United Nations to meet the needs of their times, but its leaders well understood that time would not stand still. Today, we face a world that is dramatically different than that of 1945. Decisionmaking procedures designed for a world of some 50 nations must now accommodate almost 200. Some of the old rules are harmless. The General Assembly meets when it does because this was when the steamships used to arrive in New York harbors. But some of the procurement and hiring rules have slowed and encumbered multifaceted peace operations that depend on nimbleness and efficiency for success.

Most of the gravest threats faced by the United States are transnational threats: the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, climate change, and global pandemics like HIV/ AIDS. These threats are bred in places marked by other transnational challenges: mass atrocities and genocide, weak and failed states, and persistent poverty. By definition, these are challenges that no single country can manage. America's national security depends as never before upon the will and capacity of other states to deal with their own problems and to take responsibility for tackling global problems. A strong and competent United Nations is more vital than ever to building global peace, security, and prosperity.

The United States must champion reform so the United Nations can help us meet the challenges of the 21st century.

The United Nations must step up to the challenge posed by countries developing illicit nuclear programs. The largest test of our resolve on this grave matter is in Iran, where leaders appear resolved to ignore their responsibilities to the international community. The United Nations must send a clear message to Tehran that if Iran verifiably ends its nuclear program and support for terrorism, it can join the community of nations. If it does not, it will face tougher sanctions and deeper isolation. To this end, all U.N. sanctions against Iran must be fully enforced in order to ensure their effectiveness in pressuring Iran to halt its illicit nuclear program, which has all the hallmarks of an attempt to acquire nuclear weapons.

Governments willing to brutalize their own people on a massive scale cannot escape sanction by the international community. The U.N., joined by the United States, has endorsed the responsibility to protect--the right and responsibility of the international community to act if states do not protect their own people from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and crimes against humanity. But, there is a huge gap between words and deeds. Governments must replace their willingness to talk about the abstract ``responsibility to protect'' with an actual willingness to exercise that responsibility. And they should start in Darfur.

The United States should seek to reform the U.N. Human Rights Council and help set it right. If the Council is to be made effective and credible, governments must make it such. We need our voice to be heard loud and clear, and we need to shine a light on the world's most repressive regimes, end the Council's unfair obsession with Israel, and improve human rights policies around the globe.

We need ambassadors to the U.N. who will represent all of America, not an ideological fringe, who will forge coalitions with others, not isolate America, and who will work tirelessly to strengthen the U.N.'s capacity, not revel in weakening it.

The U.S. needs to lead the effort to reform and streamline the U.N.'s bureaucracy, increase efficiency and root out corruption. Managing urgent and high-stakes transnational challenges will be difficult under the best of circumstances. Just as we must demand professionalism, rigor, and accountability from officials in our own government, we must not ask less of those who serve the global good.

Congress needs to support the U.N. with the resources it deserves and abide by the commitments we have made. The Bush administration's record on the payment of dues is uneven, which has depleted the U.N.'s capabilities and sent a signal that this administration does not respect its purpose or its promise. We must guarantee full and prompt payment of our U.N. dues. At the same time, the U.N. and its member states have to uphold their end of the bargain. Too often, we have seen resources wasted or spent to protect parochial interests. It is time to ensure that the U.N.'s money is well spent.

We should not merely react to crises once they occur. By working through the U.N., as well as other multilateral agencies and private organizations, the United States can do more to prevent mass violence from occurring in the first place. Combining effective diplomacy and economic assistance or, when necessary, sanctions can help forestall crises that undermine regional and international security.

The U.N. is ultimately an instrument of its member states. Its future is in our hands. Let us provide bold and effective leadership to reinvigorate it so it finally achieves the potential that Roosevelt envisioned and on which our common security and common humanity depend.

Mr. President, I applaud the Senator from California, Ms. Boxer, for her leadership and hard work in passing the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) conference report yesterday. Had I been in Washington, DC, yesterday, I would have enthusiastically voted for the conference report on final passage.

Typically these critical water infrastructure authorizations are enacted by Congress every two years. For almost eight years, however, these priorities have languished under the watch of the previous Senate leadership. At the beginning of the 110th Congress in January, when the Senator from California became Chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, she pledged that the Water Resources Development Act would be completed by the Senate in a timely fashion. She kept that pledge, and I applaud her commitment.

By comparison, during the 109th Congress, those of us who supported swift

enactment of this bill encountered considerable obstacles. As a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I was the only Democrat on the Committee to be an original cosponsor of the bill; when the bill passed out of committee in March 2005, I called upon then- Majority Leader Frist to schedule floor time for the bill that summer. It did not occur.

In September of 2005, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, and I worked together on a bipartisan letter, signed by 40 of our colleagues, calling upon Senate Republican leadership to schedule floor time for this bill. We were informed that the support of 40 Senators was insufficient, that 60 signatures would be necessary. So we gathered 80 signatures. It was not until September 2006 that the Senate finally scheduled debate on WRDA, too late for the bill to be conferenced before the end of the 109th Congress.

I will ask that the text of those letters be printed in the Record.

Now it is September 2007, and at long last, the conference report has been completed. This bill authorizes almost $2 billion for upgrades to locks and dams along the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers. Illinois is the largest shipper of corn and soybeans on these rivers, and the 70 year old system of locks and dams needs these upgrades to ensure swifter access to export markets--something, by the way, that competitors like Brazil are doing right now. A significant part of the farm economy is about reducing transportation costs, so if we are to strengthen our agriculture markets, we need to strengthen waterway transportation, and that means upgrading these locks and dams.

The bill also authorizes funding for a number of noteworthy Illinois projects, including the Keith Creek dam to prevent flooding in Rockford, Illinois, a third-party review of the disagreement in reconstructing Promontory Point in Chicago, and dredging at the Beardstown, Illinois harbor.

Remarkably, the President has proposed a veto of this bill, which includes approval for nationwide funding of critical flood control, navigation, environmental restoration, and storm damage reduction initiatives; the importance of such funding was tragically highlighted by Hurricane Katrina. I urge the President to drop that veto threat and support these long-delayed upgrades to our national infrastructure that were approved overwhelmingly by the House and Senate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimously to have the letters to which I referred printed in the Record.

Mr. President, let me begin by expressing my utmost support for Senator Warner. I am absolutely convinced of his commitment to our troops. I do not think there are many people in this Senate Chamber who understand our military better or care more deeply about our military. So I have the highest regard for him.

I have to say I respectfully disagree on this issue and must rise in strong support of the amendment offered by Senator Webb to require minimum periods between deployments for members of our armed services who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. This amendment protects our brave men and women in uniform and ensures that our Armed Forces retain their ability to meet any challenge around the world. That is something that ultimately all of us have to be concerned about. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

I opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning and have called repeatedly for a responsible end to the foreign policy disaster that this administration has created. Over 3,700 American service men and women have died in this war. Over 27,000 have been seriously wounded. Each month, this misguided war costs us a staggering $10 billion. When all is said and done, it will have cost us at least $1 trillion.

There are different views of the war in this Chamber, but there is no disagreement about the tremendous sacrifice of the men and women who are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. They have performed valiantly under exceedingly difficult circumstances. They have done everything we have asked of them. But they have also been stretched to the limit. The truth is, we are not keeping our sacred trust with our men and women in uniform. We are asking too much of them, and we are asking too much of their families. We owe it to our troops and their families to adopt a fair policy that ensures predictable rotations, adequate time to be with their families before redeployment, and adequate time for realistic training for the difficult assignments we are giving them.

Our service men and women will always answer the call of duty, but the reality is extended deployments and insufficient rest periods are taking their toll. The effects of the strain are clear: Increasing attrition rates, falling retention rates among West Point graduates, increasing rates of post-traumatic stress disorder and unprecedented strain on military families.

This amendment is a responsible way to keep our sacred trust while restoring our military to an appropriate state of readiness. It ensures that members of our Armed Forces who are deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan have at least the same amount of time at home, before they are redeployed. It would also ensure that members of a Reserve component, including the National Guard, cannot be redeployed to Iraq or Afghanistan within 3 years of their previous deployment.

After 4\1/2\ years of fighting in Iraq and almost 6 years of fighting in Afghanistan, we owe it to our troops and their families to provide them with a more predictable schedule with sufficient time home between deployments. As the Military Officers Association of America, which represents 368,000 members, has stated:

If we are not better stewards of our troops and their

families in the future than we have been in the recent past,

the Military Officers Association of America believes

strongly that we will be putting the all-volunteer force at

unacceptable risk.

There are scores of anecdotes that bear out the strain on our families. One woman from Illinois recently wrote my office telling me how her husband was facing his fourth deployment in 4\1/2\ years. She described how her husband had spent so much time in Iraq that, in her words: ``He feels like he is stationed in Iraq and only deploys home.'' That is not an acceptable way to treat our troops. That is not an acceptable way to treat their families.

This amendment is not only important for military families, it is also important for our national security. Our military simply cannot sustain its current deployments without crippling our ability to respond to contingencies around the world.

This is all the more important since the administration has squandered our resources on the war in Iraq and neglected to address serious threats to our safety. According to the National Intelligence Estimate in July, al-Qaida has ``protected or regenerated key elements of its homeland attack capability,'' including a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants, and its top leadership.

Ensuring the readiness and capabilities of our troops will be crucial to confronting the threat of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and other parts of the world and deterring other threats to America's national security.

Over the coming months, I will continue to push for a new course in Iraq that immediately begins a safe and orderly withdrawal of our combat troops, that changes our military mission to focus on training and counterterrorism, that puts real pressure on the Iraqis to resolve their grievances, and that focuses our military efforts on the real threats facing our country.

I believe this amendment is an important part of that new course. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this proposal.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 19, 2007, at 10 a.m., to mark up H.R. 835, the Hawaiian Homeownership Opportunity Act of 2007; S. 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007; and an original bill entitled the FHA Modernization Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a nomination hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 3 p.m., to hold a hearing on protecting natural treasures through international organizations.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building to conduct a hearing on the process of Federal recognition of Indian tribes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on S. 1905, the Regional Presidential Primary and Caucus Act of 2007, to provide for a rotating schedule for regional selection of delegates to a national nominating convention, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, in order to conduct an oversight hearing on information technology within the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Committee will meet in Dirksen 562, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Evolution of an Economic Crisis?: The Subprime Lending Disaster and the Threat to the Broader Economy'', in Room 216 of the Hart Senate Office Building, on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from 9:30 a.m. to 1 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be authorized to meet on, Wednesday, September 19, 2007, from 10:30 a.m.-12:30 p.m., in room SD-106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Human Rights and the Law, be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled ``The `Material Support' Bar: Denying Refuge to the Persecuted?'' on Wednesday, September 19, 2007 at 2:30 p.m., in the Dirksen Senate Office Building room 226.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Transportation Safety, Infrastructure Security, and Water Quality be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 19, 2007, at 10 a.m., in room 406 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in order to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Meeting America's Wastewater Infrastructure Needs in the 21st Century.''

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the DC voting rights bill that the Senate just voted on. I am disappointed that this measure failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in order for the bill to be considered.

This is a bill that seeks to protect the most fundamental right of citizens in our democracy the right to vote. Different generations in our Nation's history have struggled to gain and safeguard this universal right--from the 15th amendment, which extended the right to vote to newly freed slaves, to the 19th amendment, which guaranteed the right to women, and finally to the Voting Rights Act, which gave real substance to voting laws that had been previously abused. Yet, as we speak, this most basic right in a democracy is denied to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

Our brave civil rights leaders sacrificed too much to ensure that every American has the right to vote for us to tolerate the disenfranchisement of the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia. Those who live in our Nation's Capital pay taxes like other Americans. They serve bravely in the Armed Forces to defend our country like other Americans. They are called to sit on Federal juries like other Americans. Yet they are not afforded a vote in Congress. Instead, they are granted a nonvoting Delegate who can sit in the House of Representatives and serve on committees but cannot cast a vote when legislation comes to the floor.

As a community organizer in Chicago and as a civil rights attorney, I learned that disenfranchisement can lead to disengagement from our political system. In many parts of DC, you can look down the street and see the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Yet so many of these streets couldn't be more disconnected from their Government.

If we are to take seriously our claim to a government of, by, and for the people, Washington shouldn't be just the seat of our Government, but it also should reflect the core values and fundamental promise of our democracy. Denying the right to vote to citizens who are equally subject to the laws of this Nation undermines a central premise of our representative Government. The right to vote belongs to every American, regardless of race, creed, gender, or geography.

For these reasons, I fully support this important legislation. Although today's vote is a disappointment, I will continue to work with Mayor Fenty, Congresswoman Norton, and the sponsors of this bill until the residents of the District of Columbia achieve full representation in Congress.

Mr. President, as President Bush arrives in Sydney to take part in the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation, APEC, leaders meeting, it is appropriate to take stock of America's role in the Asia- Pacific region.

America's future prosperity and security is directly tied to Asia. The region contains the world's fastest growing major economies, largest militaries, largest energy consumers and importers, and biggest contributors to global climate change. Some of the most critical items on our international agenda--such as ending North Korea's nuclear weapons program, developing ties to moderate Muslim states, building a sound global economy, achieving energy security, combating climate change, and responding to pandemic disease--are impossible to achieve without robust U.S. partnerships and sustained engagement in Asia.

But despite the region's obvious importance, we have lost ground over the past seven years. The war in Iraq that should never have been authorized or waged has been an enormous distraction from the fight against al-Qaida, which has reconstituted itself in Afghanistan and Pakistan. In addition to the enormous costs in lives and resources, the war has also set back our standing and leadership in the world, and made it far more difficult for America to lead on critical issues. In Asia, a region that both wants and expects United States' leadership, this inattention has led to a decline in U.S. prestige and influence and has placed our national security interests in jeopardy.

While America has been increasingly absent in Asia, China has promoted itself as an alternative to U.S. leadership. And with fundamental shifts in Asia's security and economy underway--a rising China, emerging India, a Japan seeking to become a more ``normal'' and assertive nation, and North Korea and South Korea presenting dangers and opportunities the United States cannot afford to stay on the sidelines.

U.S. engagement is vital to maintaining the balance, and therefore peace, among potentially competing powers. In particular, the rise of China requires a clear-sighted view of our interests. A policy that seeks cooperation with China on security, economic, energy and environmental issues, maintains our military strength in the western Pacific, and strengthens our ability to compete must be a foundation of any successful policy.

While APEC may be primarily an economic forum, it also offers the opportunity to engage all the region's leaders in a single setting--and to further our agenda across the range of key challenges. Too often, the U.S. has missed this opportunity.

North Korea's nuclear ambitions already have had a profound impact on the region, and we must work to achieve a complete and verifiable elimination of all the DPRK's nuclear weapons capabilities and programs. I welcome the recent statement that North Korea will declare and disable its nuclear programs by the end of the year. For far too long, the administration's disdain for diplomacy allowed the threat from North Korea to grow. While clearly the best time to negotiate with North Korea would have been before it tested a nuclear weapon, we must now verify North Korean compliance with their commitments. This will demand principled, aggressive, direct and sustained American diplomacy and leadership in the region.

To build support against terrorists and prevail in the long-term battle against violent extremism, the U.S. must work closely with Asia, and Southeast Asia in particular, to develop effective strategies that both prevent acts of terrorism and root out al-Qaida elements. In addition to cooperative military, intelligence, and law enforcement efforts, this will require recognition that our relationships in the region are more complex and multidimensional than a narrow approach to counterterrorism. We should use the opportunity of the APEC forum to explore new initiatives to increase political, diplomatic, economic, educational, and cultural engagement.

In terms of our shared prosperity, nowhere is America's sustained leadership more important in ensuring that the global economy remains vibrant. Together the economies of the APEC region account for over half the world's output and trade. It is essential that Asian countries work with us to ensure balanced growth and openness of the global trading system. This means shifting away from their traditional dependence on export-led growth and weak currencies toward stronger consumption at home and greater absorption of imports. The United States should negotiate only ``gold standard'' agreements with our Asian trading partners that stimulate growth and jobs and contain binding labor and environmental standards and intellectual property protections.

With the nations of East Asia working together through ASEAN, the ASEAN Regional Forum, APEC, the East Asia Summit and other regional arrangements, Asia is moving ahead--with or without us--to create a new regional architecture. Our interests demand that we re-engage to ensure trans-Pacific linkages are relevant and strong. That means developing new arrangements to meet new and rising challenges and transnational threats that stem from globalization--especially in the areas of pandemic disease, climate change, and energy security. The latest pandemic, an unidentified, highly contagious virus affecting pigs, is sweeping Asia. We must ensure that China and other affected countries cooperate in research and containing this and future outbreaks of disease. We should use the opportunity of APEC to further the dialogue about the growing problem of pandemics.

On climate change and energy, the U.S. and Asia face many of the same

challenges, and we ought to capitalize on those areas where our interests intersect. We have a mutual interest, for instance, in assuring adequate oil supplies, preventing disruptions in oil and gas exporting states and in the sea lanes, promoting greater efficiency, developing and expanding clean sources of energy, coordinating build-up and release of strategic stockpiles to prevent price spikes during supply emergencies, and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. The time is ripe for U.S. leadership on a serious and comprehensive energy and climate initiative in Asia that would ramp-up the development and deployment of efficiency-related technologies, establish an adequate research and development fund for carbon sequestration and related technologies, increase opportunities for U.S. businesses to capture a share of the region's burgeoning clean energy market, and create a forum to address supply security-related concerns.

We will not be able to fight global climate change effectively unless the United States is able to lead the world toward a post-Kyoto Protocol framework that includes binding limits on the large projected growth in greenhouse gas emissions from China, India, and other Asian countries. The Bush administration's prolonged refusal to confront the challenges of climate change at home has robbed the United States of its ability to lead effectively in such efforts abroad. We should use the opportunity of APEC to discuss a new, comprehensive energy initiative in Asia to address the twin challenges of energy security and climate change.

The U.S. also should work with its Asian partners to strengthen democracy. Nowhere is the need for building consensus more pressing than in Burma. Peaceful pro-democracy activists continue to put their lives on the line for freedom, and democratic nations should stand in solidarity with them. U.S. leadership is vital to any regional effort to press the military junta to achieve national reconciliation.

The U.S. must resume an active leadership role in Asia. We cannot sit on the sidelines. We have too much at stake in Asia, in terms of our prosperity, security, energy, and health. If we are to protect and advance these interests, America must be a reliable and engaged partner. It is good that President Bush is traveling to Sydney for APEC, and I know we all wish him success at this important summit. But the time has long since passed to pursue a new path that reflects the importance of Asia to our national interests and enables the United States to play a greater and appropriate leadership role in the region. We cannot afford any more missed opportunities.

I thank the Senator.

Madam President, I come to the floor to speak in strong support of the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007.

First of all, let me commend the Presiding Officer for the outstanding work she has done in helping to shepherd this process through. It is wonderful work. I think the American people very much appreciate the improvements that are being made to our political process as a consequence. I also commend Senator Reid for his outstanding leadership on this bill. I especially thank my good friend, Senator Feingold, with whom I have worked closely on this issue over the past year and a half.

The bill before us today could not be more urgently needed. For too long, the American people have seen lobbyists treat the legislative process like a game, using targeted contributions to maximize their leverage. For too long, people have believed their voice and interests have been drowning in a sea of lobbyist money and influence in Washington.

This is not the first time we have faced a crisis of confidence in government. Around the turn of the last century, wealth was becoming more concentrated in the hands of a few robber barons, railroad tycoons, and oil magnates. It was an era known as the Gilded Age. It was made possible by a government that played along. But when

President Theodore Roosevelt took office, he wouldn't play along. He devoted his Presidency to busting trusts, breaking up monopolies, and doing his best to give the American people a shot at the American dream once more.

America needs this kind of leadership more than ever. It needs leadership that sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American.

We cannot settle for a second Gilded Age in America. Yet we find ourselves once more in the midst of a new economy, where more wealth is in danger of falling into fewer hands, where CEO pay grows from year to year as the average worker's pay remains stagnant, where Americans are struggling like never before to pay their medical bills or kids' tuition or high gas prices, all the while the profits of drug and insurance and oil industries have never been higher.

Once again we are faced with the politics that makes all of this possible. In recent years, the doors to Congress and the White House have been thrown wide open to an army of Washington lobbyists who turned our Government into a game only they can afford to play. Year after year, they stand in the way of our progress as a country. They stop us from addressing the issues that matter most to our people.

Let's take health care, just as one example. The drug and insurance industry spent $1 billion in lobbying over the last decade. They got what they paid for when their friends in Congress broke the rules and twisted arms to push through a prescription drug bill that actually made it illegal for our own Government to negotiate with the pharmaceutical companies for cheaper drug prices. Because reform has been blocked up until now, there are parents and grandparents in this country who are walking into the drugstore and wondering how their Social Security check is going to cover a prescription that is more expensive than it was a month ago, who are being forced to choose between their medicine and groceries because they can no longer afford both.

Let me be clear, I do not begrudge businesses trying to make a profit. I do not begrudge them hiring lobbyists to plead their case before Congress. It is protected political speech, and we appreciate that there are many lobbyists who represent their clients well and fairly. But it is time we had a Congress that tells drug companies or oil companies or the insurance industry that, while they may get a seat at the table in Washington, they don't get to buy every single chair. We need to put an end to the prevailing culture in this town, and that is what we have been trying to do for the past couple of years.

Last year, Congress came up with a somewhat watered-down version of reform.

I, along with others, such as Senator Feingold and the Senator from Arizona, who is about to speak, Mr. McCain, voted against it because we thought we could do better.

In January, I came back with Senator Feingold, and we set a high bar for reform. I am pleased to report that the bill before us today comes very close to what we proposed. By passing this bill, we will ban gifts and meals and end subsidized travel on corporate jets; we will close the revolving door between Pennsylvania Avenue and K Street; and we will make sure the American people can see all the pet projects lawmakers are trying to pass before they are actually voted on.

We will do something more. Over the objections of powerful voices in both parties, we will ensure that our laws shine a bright light on how lobbyists help fill the campaign coffers of Members of Congress by bundling contributions from others. Because an era in which soft money is prohibited, the real measure of a lobbyist's influence is not how much money he has contributed, it is how much money he is raising from others.

For too long, this practice has been hidden from public view. But today we can change that. I am pleased the amendment I have offered on bundling is part of this bill. I wish to thank Representative Chris Van Hollen, who fought so hard to get this provision included in the House bill. As the Washington Post described the bundling provision earlier this year:

No single change would add more public understanding of how

money really operates in Washington.

So there is a lot of good in this bill. I truly hope and believe it will change the way we do business in Washington.

Let's not forget, though, there is still some more we need to do. One of the things I have argued is necessary to have on this is an independent entity to enforce ethics rules in Congress. Because no matter how well we police our own conduct, as long as we are our own prosecutor, judge, and jury, the public will never have complete trust in our decisions. So far, that is a fight I have lost. But I will continue to support independent enforcement because I believe it is in our Nation's best interests.

I also believe that if we are serious about change, we need to have a real discussion about public financing for Congressional elections. Because even if we can stop lobbyists from buying us lunch or taking us out on junkets, they will still be able to attend our fundraisers, and that is access the average American does not have.

In our democracy, the price of access and influence should be nothing more than your voice and your vote. That should be enough for health care reform. That should be enough for a real energy policy. That should be enough to ensure our Government is still the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American.

It is time to show the American people we have the courage to change the prevailing culture in this city. It is time to give people confidence in their Government again. We have a chance to start doing it with this bill.

I proudly support this legislation. I once again thank the chair for her outstanding work in moving this forward. I urge all my colleagues to support the legislation.

Mr. President, I respond to my friend from Wisconsin that that is, indeed, the case. The bill requires candidate committees, political party committees, and leadership PACs to report contributions bundled by lobbyists if those contributions total more than $15,000 in a 6-month period. Persons whose bundling has to be reported include individuals, lobbying firms, or lobbying organizations registered or listed on registrations filed under the Lobbying Disclosure Act and political committees established or administered by each registrant or individual listed lobbyist. These persons also include any agent acting on behalf of a registered lobbyist, lobbying firm, or lobbying organization. Thus, if the CEO of a lobbying organization is raising money as an agent of the organization, his activities are covered by the legislation and must be reported. But employees of a lobbying organization, including a CEO, who are not lobbyists listed on the organization's lobbying disclosure reports are not covered, unless they are acting as agents for the organization.

The definition of bundled contributions includes contributions (i) ``forwarded from the contributor or contributors to the committee'' and (ii) contributions ``received by the committee from a contributor or contributors, but credited by the committee or candidate involved . . . to the [lobbyist] through records, designations, or other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised by the [lobbyist].''

Part (i) of the definition means that any contributions that are physically handled by the lobbyist and are transferred, delivered, or sent to a campaign are considered to be bundled. But in addition, under part (ii), if contributions sent directly to a campaign by the contributors are ``credited'' to the lobbyist, they are also bundled. The ``credit'' doesn't have to be written or recorded because the definition includes ``other means of recognizing that a certain amount of money has been raised.'' So if a lobbyist tells a candidate that he has raised a certain amount of money for the campaign, the lobbyist should be credited with that amount of fundraising, and the bundling must be reported, assuming, of course, that the threshold amount of contributions is met within the 6-month period. This was what we were trying to get at in the amendment that passed the Senate in January--to cover contributions that were physically collected by a lobbyist and transferred to a campaign, contributions that were formally recorded by a campaign as having been raised by a lobbyist, and contributions that a candidate or a campaign was aware had been raised by a lobbyist.

Yes, I agree with that view. At many fundraisers, the host of the event collects the checks and gives them to a representative of the campaign. So that would be covered because the contributions have been ``forwarded'' to the campaign. But at some events, a representative of the campaign, or even the candidate, physically receives checks directly from contributors as they arrive or leave, and of course, some checks may be sent in afterward. In that case, the campaign knows the total amount raised, and knows the lobbyist who hosted the fundraiser is responsible for those contributions. Even if no formal records are kept about the money raised at the event, although most campaigns obviously do keep such records, the campaign has credited the lobbyist with that fundraising and it must be reported, as long as the threshold amount is met.

That brings up a question that I wanted to clarify. In a situation when a fundraising event is cohosted by a number of different lobbyists, I am concerned that some might want to avoid reporting bundled contributions by dividing up the total receipts of a fundraising event among many sponsors or cohosts of the event. Certainly, that was not our intention. Does my friend from Wisconsin agree with me?

Mr. President, I appreciate the explanations and clarifications offered by the Senator from Wisconsin. The provision in the bill is aimed at requiring the disclosure of bundling, not prohibiting bundling. It must be broadly interpreted by the Federal Election Commission, consistent with its purpose. Indeed, section 204 specifically directs the FEC ``to provide for the broadest possible disclosure'' of bundling activities.

I commend my good friend from Wisconsin for his leadership on this issue. He has championed ethics and lobbying reform for many years, and he deserves much of the credit for the crafting of this important bill.

Limited Tax and Tariff Benefits

Mr. President, I believe under the current agreement, the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Lincoln, is next. I ask unanimous consent simply to call up an amendment, if there are no objections.

My only request was to call up the amendment so it would be pending. I will not speak any further.

I want to make sure I do not leave the Senator from Arkansas waiting. I was not going to speak on this but simply get my amendment pending.

After the existing order? I have no objection to that.

I ask unanimous consent the pending amendment be set aside so I may call up amendment No. 2588.

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

Mr. President, I rise today to extend my appreciation and best wishes to my good friend, Ray LaHood, who recently announced his intention to retire at the end of the 110th Congress.

His retirement next fall will mark the end of a long, successful career representing the 18th District of Illinois--first as a staffer for 12 years for then-minority leader Bob Michel and then as a distinguished member of Congress for seven terms.

Born in the district he has represented for over 13 years, Ray LaHood's constituents have always been his No. 1 priority. Long after Ray leaves office, Illinoisans from Peoria to Jacksonville will benefit from his attention to local infrastructure needs, whether it is the roads, hospitals or arts projects of central Illinois.

He has been a champion for economic development in rural communities, expanded use of alternative energy, and conservation efforts along the Illinois River. Ray and I also worked together earlier this year to help our Nation's servicemembers and veterans by introducing the Lane Evans Mental Health and Benefits Act.

But beyond his many legislative accomplishments is the distinctive spirit that Ray brought to his job. His time in Washington has been marked by a willingness to speak the truth and work across party lines--traits that have earned him the highest respect and admiration from colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

For several years, Ray hosted bipartisan congressional retreats to bring Members of Congress together for an open dialogue about ways to solve the country's problems in a civil manner. At a time in which Congress is marked by ideological warfare and harsh personal rhetoric, Ray is always searching for ways to bridge the partisan divide and find commonsense solutions to the problems facing average Americans. He was--and is--the ideal successor to Bob Michel, the great statesman who mentored him.

On a personal note, I will always be grateful to him for joining me in opening my Springfield office in January 2005 shortly after I came to the Senate. That small gesture of bipartisanship meant a lot to a freshman Senator and is a reflection of Ray's decency.

The people of central Illinois will miss Ray LaHood's hard work on their behalf, and I will miss his friendship.

I thank Ray for his many years of service to Illinois and to his country, and I wish him and his family all the best as he embarks upon this next chapter in his life.

Mr. President, the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology and the possibility that a nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of terrorists constitute the most urgent threat to our national security. As experts on this issue such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn have all warned, our current policies to deal with the threat posed by nuclear weapons are simply not adequate.

We know al-Qaida has made it a goal to acquire a nuclear weapon. At the same time, significant quantities of the material necessary to make one remain vulnerable to theft in various parts of the world. And, to make matters worse, the world may be on the brink of a new and dangerous era with a growing number of nuclear-armed states, as illustrated by North Korea's nuclear test last year and Iran's refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program.

So today, along with Senator Hagel, I am introducing the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which provides for sustained U.S. leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar in creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense, there is no question that we have made significant progress in securing nuclear stockpiles. But there are still significant quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft. In the civilian sector alone, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly enriched uranium, enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs, spread out at facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Many of these facilities do not have adequate physical security, leaving the material vulnerable to theft.

The insecure storage of nuclear stockpiles has already led to an alarming number of attempted exchanges of small quantities of dangerous nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, confirmed 16 incidents between 1993 and 2005 that involved trafficking in relatively small amounts of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. That is 16 incidents too many, in my opinion, and 16 incidents that should not have been allowed to happen.

Experts believe that a sophisticated terrorist group could potentially construct a crude nuclear bomb if it obtained the necessary amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The 9/11 Commission concluded that a trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an orange could make a nuclear device that would level Lower Manhattan. Simply put, our ability to secure nuclear stockpiles around the world is what stands between the safety of the American people and a terrorism incident of almost unimaginable horror.

It is imperative that we build and lead a truly global effort to secure all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to the highest standards to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. It is also essential that we make preventing nuclear terrorism a top presidential priority--with the resources, diplomatic effort and funding to match the threat. We need to work with other countries to ensure effective and sustainable security of nuclear stockpiles and to ensure that the highest priority is placed on security of those weapons and materials that pose the greatest risk.

The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive threat reduction plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites are secure by 2012. The plan must clearly designate agency responsibility and accountability, specify program goals and metrics for measuring progress, and outline estimated schedules and budget requirements.

To meet this ambitious goal, the bill calls for accelerating U.S. programs to secure, consolidate, and reduce stocks of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, including highly enriched uranium at civilian nuclear facilities worldwide. Additional funding is authorized for the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an important program that secures and removes high-risk nuclear materials from vulnerable locations around the world.

The bill calls for the United States to work cooperatively with other countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to develop and implement a comprehensive set of standards and best practices to provide effective physical protection and accounting for all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material.

The bill also authorizes additional funding to improve our ability to trace the origin of nuclear material that might be transferred or used in a terrorist attack so that responsible parties can be held accountable.

Given the nature of the threat we face from nuclear terrorism, we can't succeed if we act alone. Indeed, the danger of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism reminds us of how critical global cooperation will be to U.S. security in the 21st century. America must lead in rebuilding the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats. And this legislation seeks to provide the tools to do just that.

While nuclear terrorism remains a dire threat to our security, it is only one part of the overall threat posed by nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act also addresses the need to reduce global arsenals and prevent the emergence of additional nuclear-armed nations. In all too many respects, the essential bargain that stands at the core of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is unraveling. Countries like North Korea and Iran are demonstrating that nuclear technology acquired for ostensibly civilian purposes can provide the basis for producing nuclear weapons. At the same time, established nuclear powers retain large arsenals and are reemphasizing the importance of nuclear weapons to their security.

At the end of the Cold War, many had hoped and believed that the world was moving in the right direction to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. America and Russia agreed to significant reductions in their massive nuclear arsenals. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were persuaded to give up their post-Soviet nuclear arsenals. The U.S.- Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program was established. In 1994, North Korea agreed to halt its plutonium production program. And in 1995, over 180 nations agreed to take further steps to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.

In the last 6 years, however, these positive trends have stalled--and in some cases regressed. While promising to leave the Cold War behind, President Bush abandoned the very policies his successors had pursued to bring the Cold War weapons competition to a peaceful and successful end. He unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He opted for an arms reduction agreement with Russia in 2002 that does not include new verification provisions, does not require the dismantling of warheads or missiles, and allows each side to stockpile thousands of nondeployed weapons. And after ignoring the findings of U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground and launching a preemptive war against Iraq, President Bush lost much of the international goodwill that is required to mobilize global support to strengthen the beleaguered nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act calls for a balanced and comprehensive set of initiatives that would strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. The bill authorizes $50 million to support the creation of a low enriched uranium reserve administered by the IAEA that would help guarantee the availability of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. This international fuel bank can play an important role in dissuading countries from building their own uranium enrichment facilities. Additional funding is also authorized for the IAEA's Department of Safeguards to improve its ability to conduct effective inspections.

To win the struggle against nuclear proliferation, we must also have the courage to lead by example. The bill calls for talks with Russia to reduce the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons and further reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons in Russian and U.S stockpiles in a transparent and verifiable fashion, and in a manner consistent with the security of the United States. It also calls for considering changes in the alert status of U.S. and Russian forces to reduce the risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of nuclear weapons.

Other initiatives called for in the bill include reaffirming support for and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking steps to reconsider and ratify a global ban on nuclear testing, pursuing a long-overdue global agreement to verifiably halt the production of fissile material for weapons, and fully implementing the Lugar-Obama initiative that strengthens the ability of friendly foreign countries to stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and related material.

With a bold, comprehensive approach and strong U.S. leadership, we can--and must--make significant strides in reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons. America must lead the way again by marshalling a global effort to meet the challenge that rises above all others in urgency securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This bill, I believe, makes a significant contribution toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, the spread of nuclear weapons and related technology and the possibility that a nuclear weapon could fall into the hands of terrorists constitute the most urgent threat to our national security. As experts on this issue such as Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Bill Perry, and Sam Nunn have all warned, our current policies to deal with the threat posed by nuclear weapons are simply not adequate.

We know al-Qaida has made it a goal to acquire a nuclear weapon. At the same time, significant quantities of the material necessary to make one remain vulnerable to theft in various parts of the world. And, to make matters worse, the world may be on the brink of a new and dangerous era with a growing number of nuclear-armed states, as illustrated by North Korea's nuclear test last year and Iran's refusal to halt its uranium enrichment program.

So today, along with Senator Hagel, I am introducing the Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act, which provides for sustained U.S. leadership in a global effort to prevent nuclear terrorism, reduce global nuclear arsenals, and stop the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

Securing nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at their source is the most direct and reliable way to prevent nuclear terrorism. Thanks to the leadership of Senators Nunn and Lugar in creating the Cooperative Threat Reduction program at the Department of Defense, there is no question that we have made significant progress in securing nuclear stockpiles. But there are still significant quantities of weapons-usable nuclear material that remain vulnerable to theft. In the civilian sector alone, there are an estimated 60 tons of highly enriched uranium, enough to make over 1,000 nuclear bombs, spread out at facilities in over 40 countries around the world. Many of these facilities do not have adequate physical security, leaving the material vulnerable to theft.

The insecure storage of nuclear stockpiles has already led to an alarming number of attempted exchanges of small quantities of dangerous nuclear materials. The International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, confirmed 16 incidents between 1993 and 2005 that involved trafficking in relatively small amounts of highly enriched uranium and plutonium. That is 16 incidents too many, in my opinion, and 16 incidents that should not have been allowed to happen.

Experts believe that a sophisticated terrorist group could potentially construct a crude nuclear bomb if it obtained the necessary amount of plutonium or highly enriched uranium. The 9/11 Commission concluded that a trained nuclear engineer with an amount of highly enriched uranium or plutonium about the size of a grapefruit or an orange could make a nuclear device that would level Lower Manhattan. Simply put, our ability to secure nuclear stockpiles around the world is what stands between the safety of the American people and a terrorism incident of almost unimaginable horror.

It is imperative that we build and lead a truly global effort to secure all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material to the highest standards to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. It is also essential that we make preventing nuclear terrorism a top presidential priority--with the resources, diplomatic effort and funding to match the threat. We need to work with other countries to ensure effective and sustainable security of nuclear stockpiles and to ensure that the highest priority is placed on security of those weapons and materials that pose the greatest risk.

The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act requires the President to submit to Congress a comprehensive threat reduction plan for ensuring that all nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material at vulnerable sites are secure by 2012. The plan must clearly designate agency responsibility and accountability, specify program goals and metrics for measuring progress, and outline estimated schedules and budget requirements.

To meet this ambitious goal, the bill calls for accelerating U.S. programs to secure, consolidate, and reduce stocks of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material, including highly enriched uranium at civilian nuclear facilities worldwide. Additional funding is authorized for the Department of Energy's Global Threat Reduction Initiative, an important program that secures and removes high-risk nuclear materials from vulnerable locations around the world.

The bill calls for the United States to work cooperatively with other countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, to develop and implement a comprehensive set of standards and best practices to provide effective physical protection and accounting for all stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material.

The bill also authorizes additional funding to improve our ability to trace the origin of nuclear material that might be transferred or used in a terrorist attack so that responsible parties can be held accountable.

Given the nature of the threat we face from nuclear terrorism, we can't succeed if we act alone. Indeed, the danger of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism reminds us of how critical global cooperation will be to U.S. security in the 21st century. America must lead in rebuilding the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges and confront common threats. And this legislation seeks to provide the tools to do just that.

While nuclear terrorism remains a dire threat to our security, it is only one part of the overall threat posed by nuclear weapons. The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act also addresses the need to reduce global arsenals and prevent the emergence of additional nuclear-armed nations. In all too many respects, the essential bargain that stands at the core of the nuclear nonproliferation regime is unraveling. Countries like North Korea and Iran are demonstrating that nuclear technology acquired for ostensibly civilian purposes can provide the basis for producing nuclear weapons. At the same time, established nuclear powers retain large arsenals and are reemphasizing the importance of nuclear weapons to their security.

At the end of the Cold War, many had hoped and believed that the world was moving in the right direction to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. America and Russia agreed to significant reductions in their massive nuclear arsenals. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine were persuaded to give up their post-Soviet nuclear arsenals. The U.S.- Russian Cooperative Threat Reduction or Nunn-Lugar program was established. In 1994, North Korea agreed to halt its plutonium production program. And in 1995, over 180 nations agreed to take further steps to strengthen the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, NPT, and agreed to extend the treaty indefinitely.

In the last 6 years, however, these positive trends have stalled--and in some cases regressed. While promising to leave the Cold War behind, President Bush abandoned the very policies his successors had pursued to bring the Cold War weapons competition to a peaceful and successful end. He unilaterally withdrew the U.S. from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. He refused to support ratification of the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. He opted for an arms reduction agreement with Russia in 2002 that does not include new verification provisions, does not require the dismantling of warheads or missiles, and allows each side to stockpile thousands of nondeployed weapons. And after ignoring the findings of U.N. weapons inspectors on the ground and launching a preemptive war against Iraq, President Bush lost much of the international goodwill that is required to mobilize global support to strengthen the beleaguered nuclear nonproliferation regime.

The Nuclear Weapons Threat Reduction Act calls for a balanced and comprehensive set of initiatives that would strengthen the global nonproliferation regime. The bill authorizes $50 million to support the creation of a low enriched uranium reserve administered by the IAEA that would help guarantee the availability of fuel for commercial nuclear reactors. This international fuel bank can play an important role in dissuading countries from building their own uranium enrichment facilities. Additional funding is also authorized for the IAEA's Department of Safeguards to improve its ability to conduct effective inspections.

To win the struggle against nuclear proliferation, we must also have the courage to lead by example. The bill calls for talks with Russia to reduce the number of nonstrategic nuclear weapons and further reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons in Russian and U.S stockpiles in a transparent and verifiable fashion, and in a manner consistent with the security of the United States. It also calls for considering changes in the alert status of U.S. and Russian forces to reduce the risk of an accidental, unauthorized, or mistaken launch of nuclear weapons.

Other initiatives called for in the bill include reaffirming support for and strengthening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, taking steps to reconsider and ratify a global ban on nuclear testing, pursuing a long-overdue global agreement to verifiably halt the production of fissile material for weapons, and fully implementing the Lugar-Obama initiative that strengthens the ability of friendly foreign countries to stop the transfer of weapons of mass destruction and related material.

With a bold, comprehensive approach and strong U.S. leadership, we can--and must--make significant strides in reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons. America must lead the way again by marshalling a global effort to meet the challenge that rises above all others in urgency securing, destroying, and stopping the spread of weapons of mass destruction. This bill, I believe, makes a significant contribution toward that goal, and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Madam President, let me begin by thanking the Senator from Mississippi for allowing me to speak first. I appreciate his courtesy.

I also congratulate the Senator from New Jersey for his outstanding statement, sentiments which I fully share.

I will be brief.

As I have traveled across the country during these past several months, there are few issues that show a greater disconnect between what the American people want and the way Washington works than health care. Every single year people put it at the very top of the list of their concerns. Every year more people lose their insurance or watch their premiums skyrocket or open up medical bills they can't pay. Yet whenever the issue actually comes up in Washington, they watch health care debates play out that are filled with half truths and scare tactics. They see insurance companies run ads telling folks they will lose their doctor or wait forever if universal health care is passed. They watch the industry spend billions on lobbyists who use undue influence to block much needed reform. At the end of the day, nothing gets done, and we move on to fight about something else.

To most Americans, we seem completely disconnected from the reality they are living every single day, especially when we have a President who has actually said, and I quote:

I mean, people have access to health care in America. After

all, you just go to an emergency room.

That is what passes for universal health care in the greatest, wealthiest country on earth--overcrowded, understaffed emergency rooms that raise everyone's premiums and cost taxpayers more money. It is shameful. What is even more shameful is that 9 million of the Americans who are forced to wait in emergency rooms when they get sick, who have no health insurance at all, are children--children who did not choose where they were born or how much money their parents have, children whose development depends on the care and nourishment they receive in those early years, children whom any parent anywhere should want to protect at any cost.

We can shade the truth and pretend there are only 1 million uninsured, as the President says. We can make excuses for this neglect, we can start getting into an ideological argument, or we can just ignore the problem altogether. But as long as there are 9 million children in the United States with no health insurance, it is a betrayal of the ideals we hold as Americans. It is not who we are, and today is our chance to prove it.

We know CHIP works. Because of CHIP, 6 million children who would otherwise be uninsured have health care today. Because of CHIP, millions of children are protected when their parents lose their health care. Because of CHIP, individual States such as my home State of Illinois are building on its success to expand health coverage even further. And because of CHIP, millions of children with asthma, traumatic injuries, and mental health conditions are able to see a doctor and get the treatment they need.

Even though the uninsured rate among low-income children fell by more than one-third in the years after CHIP was enacted, the trend reversed 2 years ago. Since then, we have seen growing numbers of uninsured children. That is why I am always puzzled when we start getting into these debates that are ideologically driven about whether Government should provide coverage. If market-based solutions provided affordable coverage options for these children, then it wouldn't be necessary for the Government to help provide coverage, because these children wouldn't be uninsured. The reason they are uninsured is because their parents can't afford private coverage.

Uninsured children are twice as likely as insured children to miss out on much needed medical care, including doctor visits and checkups. One-quarter of uninsured children don't get any medical care at all. Those who do get lower quality care. Even with the same illness and conditions, whether it is an ear infection or appendicitis, studies have found that uninsured children get different treatment and often suffer more as a result. One study even found that uninsured children who are admitted to a hospital with injuries are twice as likely to die as children who are admitted with health insurance.

To put this problem in the larger context, we know that when a child gets sick and can't get treated or receives inadequate treatment, he misses more days of school. When he misses more days of school, he begins to do worse relative to his peers. That can have long-term consequences on his chances in life. That is not something I want for either of my two young daughters or for any American child. This body should not want it for any child either.

Let's get serious and solve this problem. Let's reauthorize CHIP. Let's make sure that the 6 million children who are now covered through the program continue to be covered. Let's extend coverage to an additional 3.2 million uninsured children.

We also know the question of children's health care is tied to the larger question of universal care in this country. Because we know that when we cover parents, we also cover children. That is something we have seen in Illinois. When I was a State senator, I was able to help extend health care coverage to an additional 150,000 parents and their children. So if we are serious about covering every child, at some point we are going to have to cover every parent as well.

The American people have been waiting for us to act on health care for far too long. Starting by covering more children should not be a difficult issue to agree on. I urge every Senator to vote for this bill. I know the President has threatened to use his veto, which he has so sparingly used, to deny health insurance to America's children. I urge my colleagues to stand and fight that veto every which way we can. There is not a single person here who, if their child were sick and they couldn't afford health insurance, wouldn't be begging the Government to give them some help. We wouldn't be having these arguments. Let's show some empathy for the families out there, many of whom are working every single day, sometimes working

two jobs and still don't have health insurance. Let's make sure they have what every parent wants, which is some assurance that if their child gets ill, they are going to receive the kind of care they deserve.

Let's cover our children and remind the American people who we are and why they sent us here in the first place.

I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of the Senate an important article that appeared in today's Baltimore Sun. It describes the progress States are making in passing laws that divest their pension funds of companies that invest heavily in Iran's oil and gas industry. As highlighted in the article, Florida enacted a significant law along these lines, and other States, including my State of Illinois, are on the verge of doing so.

The need for these laws is clear. Iran uses the revenue it generates from its energy sector to finance its pursuit of nuclear weapons and support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Along with a sustained diplomatic effort and toughened multilateral sanctions on Iran, divestment is a

useful tool that State and local governments can use to increase economic pressure to persuade Iran to end its dangerous policies.

But, as the article points out, past Supreme Court decisions have called into question whether States have the constitutional authority to pass such laws. For that reason, Congress needs to pass the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, S. 1430, which I introduced in May. This bill would clarify that States have the authority to pass divestment legislation with respect to Iran, and it would provide information from the Federal Government to make it easier for them to do so. I am proud that 14 of my colleagues have cosponsored this bill so far, but Iran's seemingly unbridled drive for nuclear weapons makes this a matter of considerable urgency. I urge the rest of my colleagues to join us in working to pass this legislation without delay.

I ask unanimous consent that the article in today's Baltimore Sun be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, like much of the Senate, I was taken aback to hear what the Attorney General had to say--and what he refused to say--before the Judiciary Committee this week. It is the latest in an effort to obfuscate and avoid accountability on issues of vital importance to this country's well being.

I fear the same was true on Friday, when the President signed an Executive order on Geneva Conventions Common Article 3 as Applied to a Program of Detention and Interrogation.

A year and a half ago, the Congress overwhelmingly adopted the McCain amendment to ensure that no prisoner in our Nation's custody is ever subjected to torture or cruel treatment. Since then, all agencies of our Government have been abiding by the humane and professional standards in the U.S. Army's Field Manual on interrogation, and getting, by the administration's own account, excellent intelligence in the war on terror.

I am deeply concerned that President Bush may now be trying to reopen the door to cruelty that Congress shut. While the Executive order appears to rule out unlawful treatment, the administration has said that the order allows the CIA to resume at least some elements of its ``enhanced interrogation'' program, and to use methods beyond those that our military employs. The administration still refuses to rule out torture techniques such as water boarding.

As our own military leadership repeatedly warns, if we say we can lawfully use an interrogation technique on enemy prisoners, what is there to prevent our enemies from employing the same interrogation technique on captured American military personnel? On Sunday, Director of National Intelligence Admiral McConnell acknowledged that the CIA can now use techniques to which he would not want to see American citizens subjected.

A policy that permits cruel and inhumane treatment at the hands of any U.S. Government personnel--whether referred to as ``enhanced interrogation'' techniques or any other name--is simply counterproductive to an effective war against terrorists. As General Petraeus put it in his recent directive to those under his command in Iraq:

Some may argue that we would be more effective if we

sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain

information from the enemy. They would be wrong. Beyond the

basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that

they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary.

These words are no less applicable to practices of the CIA.

Beyond the fact that they are neither useful nor necessary, torture and cruel and inhumane treatment of those in U.S. custody diminish the moral authority our country needs to wage an effective war against terrorists, and are simply used by al-Qaida as a recruitment tool to enlist more enemies faster than we can take them off the battlefield.

Every agency of our Government should be held to the same interrogation standards that our military lives and swears by. No one should be subject to treatment that would outrage us if inflicted on an American. Whenever America has been threatened in the past, there has been a divide in our country between those who believe that our liberties and laws make us weaker, and those who believe they make us stronger. I believe that our commitment to the rule of law is our greatest strength. We will win this war as we have won every great conflict in our history--by staying true to who we are and to the values that distinguish us from our enemies.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, today I wish to discuss the Improving Emergency Medical Care and Response Act of 2007, which I introduced yesterday. I am joined in this effort by Representative Henry Waxman, who introduced a companion bill in the House.

This bill focuses on improving communication systems used in emergency care response and provides financial support for research in emergency medicine. Disasters that strike our Nation, be it manmade or natural, can have catastrophic effects on the health and well-being of our citizens. The ability to provide adequate, timely health care following these ``sudden-impact'' events--or any emergency situation, for that matter--relies heavily on an effective and comprehensive emergency communication system. However, recent studies show that various emergency medical services throughout the country are struggling to efficiently handle just the day-to-day operations. Therefore, the concern is even greater when disaster does strike and the struggle becomes grossly amplified, ultimately exposing the gaps in our emergency care and response infrastructure. There was no clearer example of this than the flawed response to the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Patients waiting in the emergency department, ED, for extended periods of time or, potentially worse, patients leaving the ED before medical evaluation because of these long wait-times are both strong indicators that improved strategies and systems are needed to reduce the burden on our emergency medical services across the country. Extended offloading times and diversion of ambulances are also contributing factors to a slow emergency response, which can have a fatal impact on prehospital care. Unfortunately, we do not have to look far to see what tragedies will come from not addressing these issues. In fact, just months ago, tragedy struck Edith Isabel Rodriguez, a Los Angeles woman who made national headlines after she was ignored by hospital personnel, dismissed by 9-1-1 dispatchers, and denied immediate care despite vomiting blood and writhing in pain for 45 minutes until she died. How does this happen in a country that boasts one of the highest standards of living of any nation in the world? Ms. Rodriguez's death is unacceptable and is a harrowing reminder of the ultimate penalty our citizens are paying for a fractured emergency care system.

For these reasons, my bill establishes demonstration programs designed to coordinate emergency medical services, expand communication and patient-tracking systems, and implement a regionalized data management system. The types of information garnered from such demonstration programs will contain vital information such as the impact of emergency care systems on patient outcomes, program efficiency, financial impact, and identification of remaining barriers to developing regionalized, accountable emergency care systems. Of equal importance is the bill's support for research in the field of emergency medicine and emergency medical care systems. Specifically, funds are requested to support research in the basic science of emergency medicine, model of service delivery, and incorporation of basic scientific research into day-to-day practice.

Improving and identifying the best practices of emergency medical care is necessary to ensure high-quality, efficient, and reliable care for all who need it. I ask my fellow colleagues to support this legislation so that we can better prepare for emergencies and future disasters.