Floor Statements

I rise today, along with Senator Brownback, to introduce the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007. Before proceeding, I want to commend Chairman Frank for introducing similar legislation on the House side--he is a major force behind this legislation and should be recognized for his work on this issue.

This bill will enable citizens, institutional investors, and State and local governments to ensure that their money is not being used by companies that help develop Iran's oil and gas industry. This would place additional economic pressure on the Iranian regime with the goal of changing Iranian policies.

The Obama-Brownback legislation does this in three ways:

First, this legislation requires the U.S. government, every 6 months, to publish a list of companies that are investing more than $20 million in Iran's energy sector. This sunshine provision accomplishes two important objectives. It provides investors with the knowledge they need to make informed decisions about the consequences of their investments. And, since it is already illegal for U.S. companies to make such investments, it provides a powerful incentive for foreign companies to discontinue investments in Iran.

Second, this legislation authorizes State and local governments to divest the assets of their pension funds and other funds under their control from any company on the list. Several states, such as Florida and Missouri, have already taken actions to achieve these ends. But the States' authority to undertake these measures is unclear, so an explicit authorization from Congress, contained in this bill, will resolve this issue.

Third, this legislation seeks to give fund managers safe harbor and also provide investors with more choices. For fund managers who divest from companies on this list, the Obama-Brownback bill helps protect these managers from lawsuits brought by unhappy investors. The bill also expresses the sense of Congress that the government's own 401(k) fund, the Thrift Savings Plan, should create a ``terror-free'' and ``genocide-free'' investment options for government employees.

We need this bill, as Iranian actions have been well-documented. Iran's pursuit of a nuclear program, and its unwillingness to allow comprehensive international oversight, pose unacceptable risks to the United States and our allies. The international community has voiced its opposition to Iran's nuclear ambitions. For example, the U.N. Security Council passed resolutions last December, and again in March of this year, increasing sanctions on Iran for its failure to suspend uranium enrichment.

The Iranian regime has been actively sowing the seeds of instability and violence in Iraq, with deadly consequences for American soldiers. Beyond Iraq's borders, Iranian leaders are exporting militancy, sectarianism, and rejectionism throughout the Middle East. Fueled by the billions of dollars it earns from oil and gas exports, Iran has been pumping money into radical Islamist terror groups like Hezbollah and Hamas. Every bit as worrying is the rhetoric of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly calling to ``wipe Israel off the map.''

It is quite a list. But in the midst of all of this, there are signs that some Iranians understand the impact their regime's behavior is having on Iran's national interests. Conservatives in Iran look where the radicals are trying to take the country--more confrontation and more radicalism, and they are worried.

We should send a message that, if Iran wishes to benefit from the international system, it must play by international rules. If it chooses to flout those rules, then the world will turn its back on Iran. Pressuring companies to cut their financial ties with Iran is an important piece of that process, and we should allow pension funds to do so.

For all of its bluster, Iran is not a strong country. Its oil infrastructure is weak and badly in need of investment. The economy lurches under the weight of quasi-state run industries, and billions of dollars in Iranian cash sit offshore because Iranians have so little faith in their government's management of the economy. This is precisely why we need legislation along the lines of what I am introducing here today.

In general, we need to think carefully about allowing divestment, which is a tool that can be misused. However, I believe that Iran is a special case. And, in this case, divestment legislation can dissuade foreign companies from investing in energy operations whose profits will be used to threaten us. It is not a magic bullet--there is none in this situation--but is one of a menu of actions, each of which can help us to deter Iranian aggression.

We are currently involved in one ruinous war, and we need to avoid indiscriminate saber-rattling which could involve us in another. This administration's failure in Iraq has emboldened and empowered Iran, and the forces allied with it, including Hamas and Hezbollah. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to deal with Iran. It is incumbent upon us to find and implement ways to pressure Iran short of war, ways that demonstrate our deep concern about Iran's behavior, and ways that will help us to exert leadership on this issue. This bill is one of those ways.

I have called for direct engagement with Iran over its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. But, direct dialogue, as we conducted with the Soviet Union during the Cold War, should be part of a comprehensive diplomatic strategy to head off this unacceptable threat. So should the legislation Senator Brownback and I are introducing today.

I hope my colleagues will cosponsor the Obama-Brownback legislation. On the House side, I hope my colleagues in that Chamber sign on to the Frank bill. I look forward to working with others to get this bill signed into law.

In closing, I want to thank Daniel McGlinchey and James Segel of Chairman Frank's staff for their work on this bill. They were extraordinarily helpful in putting together this legislation, and I would be remiss I did not recognize their efforts.

Mr. President, I would like to applaud the Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her excellent work in swiftly bringing the Water Resources Development Act to final passage in the Senate. When the Senator from California became chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee at the beginning of the 110th Congress, she pledged that this important bill would receive Senate consideration as quickly as possible. She kept that pledge, and I encourage all supporters of this bill to acknowledge that commitment.

During the 109th Congress, those of us who supported swift enactment of the Water Resources Development Act met considerable obstacles to that goal. I called upon Senate leadership to schedule this bill in the summer of 2005. Later, my colleague, the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Bond, and I worked together on a letter, signed by 40 of our colleagues, calling upon Senate leadership to schedule floor time for this bill. Still later, when we were told that 40 was not enough, that we needed 60 signatures, we came back and got 81. Seven months later, the Senate finally scheduled debate, but the final bill was never finished before the 109th Congress adjourned. It has now been 7 years since the last WRDA bill and it is long overdue.

This bill provides approximately $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 to be upgraded to ensure swifter access to export markets--something, by the way, that competitors like Brazil are doing right now. A significant part of competitive agriculture 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.

Despite my longstanding support for WRDA, I was unable to cast a vote on the bill because I was scheduled to give a speech at the time of the vote. However, had I been able to vote, I would have supported the bill.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Ms. Snowe and Mr. Bingaman, to better educate Americans about climate change. We are today introducing the Climate Change Education Act, to broaden Americans' understanding of global warming.

There may still be disputes about exactly how much humans contribute to the warming of our atmosphere. But there is near certainty that the air we breathe is being changed by ever increased levels of greenhouse gases, with effects on climate, resources, and habitats.

Last week, I attended a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, where the issue of climate change was shown to also affect our national security. A report issued by a panel of distinguished military leaders concluded that climate change will be globally

destabilizing, leading to diminished access to fresh water, reduced food production as India and sub-Saharan Africa become hotter and drier, increased health crises as vector-borne diseases spread, and displacement of large populations as sea levels rise and coastal lands flood. As scarcities increase, conflicts over diminishing resources will also increase. Governments in resource-stressed countries may collapse. Environmental stresses may lead to human migration and refugees.

I mention this to emphasize that climate change has surprising ramifications, and that there is still much that we can all learn about this issue, with effects that go well beyond traditional environmental concerns. It is important that we all become better informed, that we analyze the information about climate change, so that we can learn how to more rationally respond.

We believe it is important to educate our Nation about the causes and effects of climate change and about how we might effectively respond. Reaching a solution to the challenge of climate change will require changes in both national policy and in our use of energy and resources. All of this will require a thoughtful understanding of the issue.

The Climate Change Education Act would create a program at the National Science Foundation, which would provide opportunities for students and citizens to learn more about global warming. The program would include a national information campaign to promote new approaches to addressing climate change and would also establish a competitive program to provide grants to develop education materials. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the campanion, H.R. 1728, to this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation, cosponsored by Ms. Snowe and Mr. Bingaman, to better educate Americans about climate change. We are today introducing the Climate Change Education Act, to broaden Americans' understanding of global warming.

There may still be disputes about exactly how much humans contribute to the warming of our atmosphere. But there is near certainty that the air we breathe is being changed by ever increased levels of greenhouse gases, with effects on climate, resources, and habitats.

Last week, I attended a hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, where the issue of climate change was shown to also affect our national security. A report issued by a panel of distinguished military leaders concluded that climate change will be globally

destabilizing, leading to diminished access to fresh water, reduced food production as India and sub-Saharan Africa become hotter and drier, increased health crises as vector-borne diseases spread, and displacement of large populations as sea levels rise and coastal lands flood. As scarcities increase, conflicts over diminishing resources will also increase. Governments in resource-stressed countries may collapse. Environmental stresses may lead to human migration and refugees.

I mention this to emphasize that climate change has surprising ramifications, and that there is still much that we can all learn about this issue, with effects that go well beyond traditional environmental concerns. It is important that we all become better informed, that we analyze the information about climate change, so that we can learn how to more rationally respond.

We believe it is important to educate our Nation about the causes and effects of climate change and about how we might effectively respond. Reaching a solution to the challenge of climate change will require changes in both national policy and in our use of energy and resources. All of this will require a thoughtful understanding of the issue.

The Climate Change Education Act would create a program at the National Science Foundation, which would provide opportunities for students and citizens to learn more about global warming. The program would include a national information campaign to promote new approaches to addressing climate change and would also establish a competitive program to provide grants to develop education materials. Earlier this month, the House of Representatives passed the campanion, H.R. 1728, to this bill.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. President, I wish to comment about an amendment that I offered to the bill, S. 1082, that the Senate passed on Wednesday.

Researchers and clinicians continue to make significant advancements in personalized medicine. The ability to diagnose, evaluate disease susceptibility, and provide medical treatment at an individual level is made possible by powerful tools such as genetic testing, an essential component of personalized medicine. Given the complex nature of genetic testing, I am pleased that my amendment, No. 1041, to the bill was accepted. This amendment provides for a study by the highly regarded Institute of Medicine, which will give independent, renowned, and respected experts in genetics,

genomics, and related fields the opportunity to provide their thoughtful recommendations on the best ways to further the promise of personalized medicine.

I thank the bill managers and their staffs for their assistance.

Mr. President, I support the nomination of Judge Frederick J. Kapala to serve as a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Judge Kapala's career exemplifies a strong commitment to public service. He currently serves as an appellate judge on the Second District Appellate Court in Illinois, a position he has held since 2001. Prior to his service on the Second District Appellate Court, Judge Kapala was a circuit court judge for the 17th Judicial Circuit for Winnebago and Boone Counties for 7 years. Prior to that service, Judge Kapala was an Associate Circuit Court Judge for the same circuit for 12 years.

After graduating from the University of Illinois College of Law in 1976, Judge Kapala became an assistant State's attorney in Winnebago County. He made a brief foray into private practice, joining the law firm of Pedderson, Menzimer, Conde, Stoner, and Killoren in Rockford from 1977 to 1982.

Judge Kapala is a magna cum laude graduate of Marquette University. He proudly served his country in the U.S. Army on both Active and Reserve duty from 1970 to 1980.

Judge Kapala has dedicated his life and career to the public good. Whether it was his military service or his judicial service to the good people of Rockford and the counties of Winnebago and Boone, Judge Kapala has served with compassion and distinction.

I am pleased to join the Senate in confirming him to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Mr. President, yesterday, the Senate took two rollcall votes. The first vote was on Senator Cochran's second degree amendment, S.A. 1010, to Senator Dorgan's prescription drug importation amendment, S.A. 990. The Cochran amendment passed the Senate by a 49 to 40 vote. The second vote was on the motion to invoke cloture on the committee substitute amendment to the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment Act of 2007, S. 1082, which was agreed to by an 82 to 8 vote.

Although I was unable to be present for these two votes, I would like to state for the record how I would have voted. I would have opposed Senator Cochran's amendment which requires the Secretary of HHS to certify that drug importation would not pose any safety risk to consumers. As a matter of practice, the Secretary is not able to certify that any drug from any facility, here in the United States or abroad, would not pose a safety risk. As such, this amendment effectively would block the implementation of Senator Dorgan's amendment.

The fact that the Cochran amendment passed is unfortunate. It is unconscionable that Americans are paying on average twice as much for lifesaving drugs as citizens of other countries, and our State and Federal health programs are struggling to bear these costs.

Finally, my HELP Committee colleagues have spent months negotiating and drafting the Prescription Drug User Fee Amendment Act, which contains a number of critical reauthorizing and drug safety provisions. I would have voted in favor of cloture on this bill and look forward to its passage later this week.

Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails these emissions in an effective manner.

Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low- Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of our climate.

According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the road.

The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by about 30 billion gallons in 2020.

The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.

The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks, old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

Mr. President, we heard from a panel of top climate change experts from around the world earlier this year that global warming is a certainty and that most of the temperature increase is very likely due to rising greenhouse gas concentrations. Reducing America's dependence on oil should be one of our top priorities, but any policy that affects our production and consumption of fuel must also address the pressing problem of global warming. Because the oil used in the U.S. transportation sector accounts for about one-third of our nation's emissions of greenhouse gases, we must adopt a policy that curtails these emissions in an effective manner.

Today, along with Senator Harkin, I am introducing the National Low- Carbon Fuel Standard Act of 2007, which calls for a reduction in the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions of the transportation fuels sold in the U.S. of 5 percent in 2015 and 10 percent in 2020. These reductions can play an important role in stemming the dangerous transformation of our climate.

According to one estimate, the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard, NLCFS, would reduce annual greenhouse gas emissions by about 180 million metric tons in 2020. This is the equivalent of taking over 30 million cars off the road. If enacted in conjunction with the bill I introduced earlier this year to raise fuel efficiency standards, the NLCFS would reduce greenhouse gas emissions by about 530 million metric tons in 2020, the equivalent of taking over 50 million cars off the road.

The effect on our oil imports would also be dramatic. By making greater use of home-grown, renewable fuels, the NLCFS could reduce the annual consumption of gasoline derived from foreign oil imports by about 30 billion gallons in 2020.

The NLCFS will greatly expand the market for domestic renewable fuels such as corn-based ethanol, cellulosic ethanol, and biodiesel. By one estimate, the NLCFS will create a market for over 40 billion gallons of biofuels by 2020. To provide near-term demand certainty for renewable fuel producers, the bill expands the Renewable Fuel Standard established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel by 2012.

The bill also contains a minimum requirement for fuels with lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are 50 and 75 percent lower than gasoline. This requirement signals to investors that there will be a market for advanced fuels with ultra-low carbon emissions, but still allows significant leeway for fuel blenders to choose the optimal mix of fuels to meet their overall greenhouse gas emissions targets.

Because the NLCFS will encourage a rapid expansion of our domestic renewable fuels production capacity, the bill contains provisions that protect sensitive areas like national wildlife refuges, national parks, old-growth forests, national grasslands, and national forests. The bill calls for an assessment of the impacts of the expansion compared to the business-as-usual scenario of continued reliance on petroleum-based transportation fuels, and the development of standards by 2012 to protect air, land, and water quality. This approach strikes a balance between the need to rapidly expand our domestic renewable fuel production capacity and the need to ensure sustainability and environmental protection. I urge my colleagues to support the National Low-Carbon Fuel Standard Act.

Mr. President, I congratulate Senator Bingaman and Senator Alexander for the passage of America COMPETES, legislation which they crafted carefully to enhance American innovation and competitiveness. I also thank them for accepting three amendments which I offered, which will help expand the range of innovative possibilities by which America faces its competitive challenges.

Let me explain this. The president of the National Academy of Engineering once said that innovation is a profoundly creative process, and that like other creative processes, it depends on the life experiences of the people involved. If we include a more diverse sample of our population, we will derive more varied and more innovative design options. We become more competitive by embracing our diversity, by involving a more representative cross-section of our populace in science, technology, and engineering endeavors.

To increase participation, I have offered three amendments that have been accepted into America COMPETES. The first establishes a mentoring program to support women and underrepresented groups as they progress through science and technology education programs, increasing the likelihood of their success. I also propose that groups representing women and minority scientists and engineers be involved as strategies are developed to increase America's competitiveness.

Also accepted was an amendment to increase the math and problem solving skills of young learners, by providing summer learning opportunities for students in elementary grades. This amendment springs from legislation I introduced earlier, with Senator Mikulski, the STEP UP Act, S. 116. This legislation responds to evidence showing that students may lose several months equivalent of math skills during the summer, if not provided learning opportunities when not in school. This is particularly important for children of poverty, for whom summer learning losses are greatest. Summer programs combat this loss in knowledge and skills, and well-designed programs can fuel the curiosity of children, helping them become active problem solvers and learners when they return to school in the fall.

I thank my colleagues for their support of these amendments.

Mr. President, there is concern that America is losing its competitive leadership. I am proud to cosponsor the America COMPETES Act because it proposes a meaningful response to that loss of leadership, and I compliment the bill managers on the bipartisan manner in which the Senate is addressing this issue. America COMPETES is a strong piece of legislation, but I wish to propose amendments that I believe will strengthen this legislation in several areas.

As our Nation becomes more diverse, scientists, engineers, and technology professionals continue to be recruited from a narrowing segment of our population. If we were able to increase the participation of underrepreseneted groups, including women, to a level reflective of their representation in the population, we would diminish the workforce issues that restrict our economic progress and generate a pool of talent that could refresh our ability to innovate. If we do not tap the diversity of our Nation as a competitive strength, we will diminish our capacity to innovate. Full participation by all segments of our populace would do more than just increase the number of workers in high technology fields; full participation would bring fresh perspectives and inventive solutions.

To increase participation, I have offered several amendments to America COMPETES. The first establishes a mentoring program to support women and underrepresented groups as they progress through education programs being proposed at the Department of Energy. Mentoring is an effective means for experienced scientists to provide professional assistance and advice to developing scientists, and such a program would ensure the success of these education programs. I also propose that women and minority scientists and engineers be represented and consulted as strategies are developed to increase America's competitiveness. This inclusion should occur at the proposed National Science and Technology Summit, on the President's Council on Innovation and Competitiveness, and elsewhere. If the concerns of diverse groups of technology professionals are not heard, it will be too easy to overlook the advantages these groups can bring to the innovation landscape.

I have also proposed that, to profit from the strength of our diversity, we must start with America's young students. Summer is a time when, as a result of summer learning loss, young students may lose several months in math skills. The summer learning loss is greatest for children living in poverty. Summer programs combat this loss, accelerate learning, and can serve to close the achievement gap in mathematics and problem-solving that currently robs us of the talents of too many children. I have introduced an amendment that supports summer learning opportunities, with curricula that emphasize mathematics and problem solving, aligned to the standards of school- year classes.

Finally, I propose that one of the major challenges facing us is an issue we understand on the basis of science; an issue that can be solved, at least partially, through technology; an issue that has the potential to greatly affect our competitiveness. It is an issue offering both challenges and great opportunities. Therefore, I am proposing an amendment to create a Climate Change Education Program to broaden our understanding of climate change. The program would emphasize information to help us comprehend climate change and to promote implementation of new technologies that would ensure our place as an international leader, willing to use science to understand our world, willing to apply technologies to address the serious challenges facing us.

I urge my colleagues to support these amendments.

Mr. President, today I extend my welcome to Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, who is making his first trip to the United States as Prime Minister this week.

The U.S. Japan alliance has been one of the great successes of the postwar era, and Japan's remarkable achievements and constructive role in world affairs over the past 60 years are a great testament to the Japanese people. As the world's two wealthiest democracies, the U.S. and Japan, have a shared interest in promoting security and prosperity in Asia and around the world--shared interests that rest on a bedrock of shared values: in democracy, the rule of law, human rights, and free markets.

As one of America's closest allies, Japan today plays a vital role in working with the United States in maintaining regional security and stability, promoting prosperity, and meeting the new security challenges of the 21st century.

Japan's role in the Six Party Talks--supporting efforts to persuade North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons program and return to the nonproliferation treaty and IAE safeguards--has been essential. And beyond North Korea, Japan today is playing a leading role in the architecture of the Asia-Pacific region, including participating in peace keeping operations, and

in building stable and enduring structures for cooperative regional security.

In the face of such threats as North Korea's nuclear and missile programs, Japan, in partnership with the United States, has also sought to reinvigorate its security profile in the region. Japan's efforts to develop a more capable Self-Defense Forces, as well as the Prime Minister's elevation of the Japan Defense Agency to a Ministry, are, in my view, both to be welcomed as signs of a ``normal'' Japan, able and willing to play a leading and responsible role in the region.

The U.S.-Japan alliance must remain at the core of efforts to revitalize Japan's role in ensuing stability and security in the region. One key aspect of this effort is the realignment of forces currently in Japan, making certain that America's ability to respond to threats in the region is not diminished.

Japan has shown that it is not only playing a responsible leadership role in its own region, but globally as well.

The occasion of the Prime Minister's visit provides an opportunity for the people of the United States to express our deep appreciation to Japan for its contributions to our efforts to combat al-Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations. In Afghanistan, Japan has donated over $1 billion in development funds to rebuild vital infrastructure precisely the sort of effort to transform the environment in Afghanistan that will be key to defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban. And Japan has provided critical support--often unseen--in multilateral efforts to thwart the growth of terrorist organizations in Southeast Asia.

Japan has also proved to be an invaluable partner in providing humanitarian response and relief in the Southeast Asia. Japan joined with the United States in responding to the tragic December 2005 tsunami, and has worked with others across the region to develop an effective tsunami early warning system.

And Japan has worked with the United States and others in the international community to develop the infrastructure and institutions we need in order to face new transnational challenges like the threat of avian influenza. Also, although Japan's foreign assistance level declined earlier in the decade, as part of the 2005 G8 global development discussions, Japan announced it would increase foreign aid by $10 billion in aggregate over the next 5 years, and double its assistance to Africa over the next 3 years.

With newspaper headlines that remind us on a daily basis of the risk the planet faces from climate change, we must also recognize the critical leadership role in the international community that Japan has played on environmental issues and climate change. The Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in Japan's ancient capital of Kyoto in 1997, has now been ratified by over 160 nations.

Japan has also played a key role in forging the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, through which the U.S., Japan, and others in the region seek to marshal the scientific and technical expertise needed to develop cleaner and more efficient technologies and bring about a carbon-neutral Asia-Pacific region without sacrificing economic growth.

As the world's second-largest economy, Japan is a vital source of growth and dynamism for the rest of the world. In this regard, the reemergence of Japan from its ``lost decade'' of virtually no economic growth is a most welcome development.

There is nonetheless still more Japan can do at home to improve the structure of its economy, from removing regulations that stifle business competition and innovation to further develop Tokyo as a global financial market. And the Japanese economy is still not open enough to imports in key sectors or to foreign direct investment. The United States has an interest in seeing Japan address these challenges so that the Japanese economy can continue to play a leading role in sustaining global economic growth.

Although not without its challenges--as is natural in any normal bilateral relationship--the United States and Japan today have a strong and deep relationship and the basis for close cooperation and partnership which will allow us to work together to meet the challenges of the decades ahead.

But I would be remiss in my duties as a friend of Japan if I did not note that for Japan to be able to play a leading role in Asia and be perceived by its neighbors as a ``normal'' nation it must deal forthrightly with its history. It is important for Japan to face these issue fully, openly, and honestly. A Japan that is mindful of its past can and should play a leading role in Asia's future.

So let me, in turn, close with some thoughts on the future of the U.S.-Japan relationship.

First, I believe that it is important for Americans, so used to a close partnership with Japan, to embrace the complex realities of a Japan that is a ``normal nation''--one that has its own identity, vision, and goals. Such a Japan should be welcomed by the United States as a true partner and friend, even while understanding that it may mean that there will be differences on certain issues.

Given the new regional realities, United States can no longer take managing the U.S.-Japan alliance for granted.

Second, although the U.S.-Japan relationship remains the centerpiece of both U.S. and Japanese policy in the Asia-Pacific region, in recent years the Bush administration has let its attention to this critical relationship drift as it has been distracted by other issues.

The alliance demands, and is deserving of, close political cooperation and coordination at every level, reflecting the key role Japan plays as an anchor of U.S. economic and security interests in the region and across the globe.

Third, recognizing the important role that Japan now plays around the globe--on peacekeeping, economic development, global warming and new transnational threats--I believe the time has long since passed for Japan to have a role commensurate with its responsibilities, including in the U.N. Security Council.

The visit of Prime Minister Abe provides us an opportunity to rededicate ourselves to the U.S.-Japan partnership, with the same spirit that has governed our relations for over 60 years. America benefits greatly from a close and productive partnership with a Japan that is confident about its future and willing and able to play a leading role in creating a peaceful and prosperous Asia.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to protect American consumers and homeowners from fraudulent and abusive mortgage lending practices. Mortgage fraud and abuse are growing problems in this country, problems that are depriving thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership and often their hard-earned life savings. These problems are also costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year and making the housing market, which is critical to our economy and the stability of our neighborhoods, more vulnerable.

Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud, which takes a variety of forms from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, is a growing problem. In September of 2002, the FBI had 436 mortgage fraud investigations. Currently, they have more than 1,036--an increase of 137 percent in less than 5 years. And of the 1,036 current cases, more than half have expected losses of more than $1 million. This is due largely to the housing boom which has driven up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.37 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2006, and the number may be even higher this year.

But mortgage fraud is not just about dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. I first introduced this legislation last year after my hometown Chicago Tribune featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud ``hot spots.''

The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans. The shells of houses were left behind as sad reminders of broken dreams. The Tribune highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. A recent Tribune investigation turned up a 91-year-old woman defrauded into signing away her brick Chicago home, her sole asset, leaving her with nothing.

Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are working extremely hard to combat fraud and abusive lending practices. I applaud their good work. Now, Congress should come to the table and do its part, and I'm pleased to introduce legislation today with my good friend Senator Durbin to address this important issue.

The STOP FRAUD Act, which was first introduced in February 2006, is aimed at stopping mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse and underdevelopment. This year, the bill includes new provisions to protect the legal rights of borrowers with particularly risky subprime loans. The Act provides the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorizes stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts.

At a time when many homeowners are concerned about losing their home to foreclosure, and policymakers are worried about fraudulent, deceptive, and even just plain confusing lending practices that are roiling communities across the country, STOP FRAUD provides $25 million for housing counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will contract with public or private organization to provide information, advice, counseling, and technical assistance to tenants, homeowners, and other consumers with respect to mortgage fraud and other activities that are likely to increase the risk of foreclosure.

The Act also protects the legal rights of borrowers with risky, subprime loans. The greatest growth in the mortgage lending market is in subprime loans and some have estimated that more than 2 million homeowners with subprime mortgages are at risk of losing their homes. If a borrower receives a subprime mortgage with any one of several high-risk characteristics, the Act protects the rights of borrowers to challenge lending practices in foreclosure proceedings. The high-risk characteristics targeted by this Act include loans for which the borrower does not have the ability to repay at the maximum rate of interest, loans whose true long-term costs are not clearly disclosed to the borrower, stated-income and no-documentation loans, and loans with unreasonable prepayment penalties.

Many States are actively trying to prevent a wave of expected foreclosures as housing prices stop rising while adjustable rates on many risk loans start rising. STOP FRAUD instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the various State initiatives and report to Congress on lending practices and regulations related to mortgage fraud and deception, predatory lending, and homeownership preservation efforts.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. There is excellent work being done by the Banking Committees in the House and Senate to tackle some of the thorniest and most challenging problems affecting the mortgage industry today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on comprehensive legislation to protect consumers and strengthen the housing market. The STOP FRAUD Act is just the beginning of an important Federal response. It is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country and to provide additional protections for vulnerable borrowers. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. President, I rise today to reintroduce legislation to protect American consumers and homeowners from fraudulent and abusive mortgage lending practices. Mortgage fraud and abuse are growing problems in this country, problems that are depriving thousands of Americans of their dream of homeownership and often their hard-earned life savings. These problems are also costing the mortgage industry hundreds of millions of dollars each year and making the housing market, which is critical to our economy and the stability of our neighborhoods, more vulnerable.

Although the data in this area is limited, mortgage fraud, which takes a variety of forms from inflated appraisals to the use of straw buyers, is a growing problem. In September of 2002, the FBI had 436 mortgage fraud investigations. Currently, they have more than 1,036--an increase of 137 percent in less than 5 years. And of the 1,036 current cases, more than half have expected losses of more than $1 million. This is due largely to the housing boom which has driven up housing prices across the country. Nearly $2.37 trillion in mortgage loans were made during 2006, and the number may be even higher this year.

But mortgage fraud is not just about dollars and statistics; it's about real people, real homes, and real lives. I first introduced this legislation last year after my hometown Chicago Tribune featured a series of articles about mortgage fraud in Illinois, which, along with Georgia, South Carolina, Florida, Missouri, Michigan, California, Nevada, Colorado and Utah, is among the FBI's top-ten mortgage fraud ``hot spots.''

The Tribune stories highlighted the plight of the good folks on May Street in Chicago, who saw a block's worth of homes go boarded up in the span of a just few years, as swindlers racked up hundreds of thousands of dollars in bad loans. The shells of houses were left behind as sad reminders of broken dreams. The Tribune highlighted the plight of 75-year-old Ruth Williams, who had to spend her personal funds to clear the title to her home after fraudsters secured $400,000 in loans on three buildings they didn't own. A recent Tribune investigation turned up a 91-year-old woman defrauded into signing away her brick Chicago home, her sole asset, leaving her with nothing.

Law enforcement, consumer groups and many in the mortgage industry are working extremely hard to combat fraud and abusive lending practices. I applaud their good work. Now, Congress should come to the table and do its part, and I'm pleased to introduce legislation today with my good friend Senator Durbin to address this important issue.

The STOP FRAUD Act, which was first introduced in February 2006, is aimed at stopping mortgage transactions which operate to promote fraud, risk, abuse and underdevelopment. This year, the bill includes new provisions to protect the legal rights of borrowers with particularly risky subprime loans. The Act provides the first Federal definition of mortgage fraud and authorizes stiff criminal penalties against fraudulent actors. STOP FRAUD requires a wide range of mortgage professionals to report suspected fraudulent activity, and gives these same professionals safe harbor from liability when they report suspicious incidents. It also authorizes several grant programs to help State and local law enforcement fight fraud, provide the mortgage industry with updates on fraud trends, and further support the Departments of Treasury, Justice and Housing and Urban Development's fraud-fighting efforts.

At a time when many homeowners are concerned about losing their home to foreclosure, and policymakers are worried about fraudulent, deceptive, and even just plain confusing lending practices that are roiling communities across the country, STOP FRAUD provides $25 million for housing counseling. The Department of Housing and Urban Development will contract with public or private organization to provide information, advice, counseling, and technical assistance to tenants, homeowners, and other consumers with respect to mortgage fraud and other activities that are likely to increase the risk of foreclosure.

The Act also protects the legal rights of borrowers with risky, subprime loans. The greatest growth in the mortgage lending market is in subprime loans and some have estimated that more than 2 million homeowners with subprime mortgages are at risk of losing their homes. If a borrower receives a subprime mortgage with any one of several high-risk characteristics, the Act protects the rights of borrowers to challenge lending practices in foreclosure proceedings. The high-risk characteristics targeted by this Act include loans for which the borrower does not have the ability to repay at the maximum rate of interest, loans whose true long-term costs are not clearly disclosed to the borrower, stated-income and no-documentation loans, and loans with unreasonable prepayment penalties.

Many States are actively trying to prevent a wave of expected foreclosures as housing prices stop rising while adjustable rates on many risk loans start rising. STOP FRAUD instructs the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the various State initiatives and report to Congress on lending practices and regulations related to mortgage fraud and deception, predatory lending, and homeownership preservation efforts.

We cannot sit on the sidelines while increasing numbers of American families face the risk of losing their homes. There is excellent work being done by the Banking Committees in the House and Senate to tackle some of the thorniest and most challenging problems affecting the mortgage industry today. I look forward to working with my colleagues on comprehensive legislation to protect consumers and strengthen the housing market. The STOP FRAUD Act is just the beginning of an important Federal response. It is a tough, cost-effective, and balanced way to address the serious problem of mortgage fraud in our country and to provide additional protections for vulnerable borrowers. I urge my colleagues to join me in this important effort.

Mr. President, during rollcall vote No. 137 today, I was at a speaking engagement in another part of the city and was unable to return in time for the vote. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted for the amendment offered by Senator DeMint.