Floor Statements

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, these are days when we Senators take to the floor to express our anger and criticism of actions or events we disagree with. But then there are days we rise happily to pay tribute to great and noble achievements. Today is such a day.

The people of Iraq went to the polls yesterday and struck a blow for freedom and democracy that has resounded across the world. As opposed to Iraq's last national elections in 2005 which saw the country rigidly divided along sectarian lines, with most Sunnis refusing to participate altogether, the election yesterday was broadly inclusive, with a host of cross-sectarian lists competing for the vote.

Early reports indicate turnout was high among Iraq's nearly 19 million registered voters. Over 50,000 polling stations were up and running across the country with more than 200,000 Iraqis observing the election.

Loud speakers in mosques that once implored Iraqis to take up arms and kill Americans appealed to them yesterday with a different purpose: to express their desire for a better Iraq--not with bullets but with ballots, not with bombs but with ink-stained fingers.

Tragically, as most of us feared, yesterday's events did not proceed without incident. Al-Qaida and other terrorists lashed out with acts of barbaric violence against innocent Iraqis--women and men, fellow Muslim and fellow Arabs, even young children. Although these criminals did take the lives of at least 37 people, Iraqis were not deterred. They voted by the millions anyway, and in so doing they defied the enemies of their great nation. The Iraqi people deserve the lion's share of the credit for making yesterday's election such a resounding triumph for democracy.

Iraq's Government, its High Electoral Commission, and its security forces all conducted themselves with distinction. I congratulate them all. It has been Iraqi courage, Iraqi sacrifice, and Iraqi endurance over many years of hardship that are now bringing about the country's emergence as an increasingly free society.

Yet Iraqis have been fortunate to have committed allies in their struggle for justice. I thank America's civilians and diplomats, as well as those of our coalition partners and the United Nations for supporting our Iraqi friends in this election and throughout the countless challenges that preceded it.

Most of all, I want to express my deepest gratitude to America's men and women in uniform who have given more to our mission in Iraq than could ever be asked of them. As our troops return home in the months ahead, as they must, it will be with the knowledge that their mission has been worth fighting for, with the thanks of a grateful nation, and with an honor won for themselves that time will not diminish.

Our fellow citizens who have served in Iraq these past several years have done what many once believed to be impossible. It was once assumed that Iraq was unfit for democracy, that Iraq's people could not practice it, and Iraq's culture would not allow it.

It was once assumed that America was trying to ``impose'' democracy on Iraq, or perhaps ``export'' it to Iraq. It was once assumed that no manner of additional U.S. troops could succeed in helping Iraqis to secure their country. These were all popular assumptions, especially in this town--popular but wrong. Thankfully, the United States followed a different course. Because we did, Iraqis are showing that freedom and democracy are Iraqi dreams and, increasingly, Iraqi realities. Iraqis are choosing to resolve their differences through cooperation and dialogue not violence and repression. They are demonstrating that Iraqis share the same basic aspirations as you and me: safe neighborhoods, opportunity for themselves and their children, equal access to justice, a chance to elect those who would govern them, and to live under laws of their own making.

Yesterday the citizens of Iraq once again reaffirmed that a nation's past need not determine its future when citizens of courage are devoted to a just cause that is greater than themselves.

I will be the first to admit that Iraq still faces many difficulties: a limited but lethal terrorist threat, the unhelpful meddling of some of its neighbors, weak political institutions, a still developing economy, and a culture of distrust that will take a long time to heal.

There is much hard work still to be done in Iraq, and the United States

must remain fully seized with it. In the weeks ahead, we must support our Iraqi friends in the arduous task of forming their new government. In the months ahead, as U.S. troops return home, we must deepen and expand America's diplomatic and economic engagement with Iraq. In the years ahead, the United States, especially our Congress, has a responsibility to continue providing the critical support, including the necessary resources to strengthen Iraq's young democracy.

We have given much to this effort already, but now is not the time to scale back. Although our military mission is ending, our commitment to Iraq will endure, and must endure, for a long time to come. The fruits of this commitment are already becoming evident for the United States. We have not seen eye to eye with the current Iraqi Government at all times. I am fairly certain that we will have our share of disagreements with future Iraqi Governments. But this does not change the fact that Iraq has transformed in just 8 years from a principal enemy of the United States to a rising partner in the fight against violence, extremism; from a generator of insecurity to an emerging source of stability in the midst of a volatile region; and from one of history's most reprehensible tyrannies to a growing inspiration for people across the Middle East who still yearn for freedom and justice in their own countries.

When Iranians look at a democratic Iraq today amid violent and bloody military crackdowns in their own country, they must be thinking: Why not us? When Syrians look at a democratic Iraq today among the stifling climate of oppression in their own country, they must be thinking: Why not us? And when our friends in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other nations in the region, where liberty is not assured, watch a peaceful transition of power in Iraq from one freely elected government to another, they must also be thinking: Why not us?

The citizens of Iraq are now writing a new and hopeful chapter for their country, but also for the region as a whole, whose people are increasingly looking to emulate Iraq, its freedoms, its rule of law, its security of human dignity, its equal rights, and equal justice. This is the start of something new and wondrous in the Middle East, a renaissance of sorts, and Iraq is at the very forefront.

The war in Iraq is ending, but America's partnership with the new Iraq is only just beginning. No matter where any of us stood in the old debates of the past, Americans should all be able to agree now that the emergence of a free and democratic Iraq is one of the greatest strategic opportunities in all of U.S. foreign policy.

America and our allies have created this opportunity. Iraqis have expanded it and seized it. Now let's all come together to usher in a new era of liberty not just for Iraq but for the entire Middle East.

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

Madam President, now that my two favorite doctors are on

the floor, I wish to refer them to and ask a question of both of them about a statement that the President just gave. He said:

I believe it's time to give the American people more

control over their own health insurance. I don't believe we

can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health

care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone.

I believe that doctors and nurses like the ones in this room

should be free to decide what's best for their patients.

By the way, I hope from now on our doctors will wear white coats on the floor. It would be impressive to me. But that is neither here nor there.

Isn't it true that on page 982 there is created a new board of Federal bureaucrats--the Independent Payment Advisory Board, it is called--required to make binding recommendations to reduce the costs of the Medicare Program? How does that work if the President is saying give the American people more control and there is an independent payment advisory board that is making binding recommendations, I ask my two doctor friends.

Madam President, I ask Dr. Barrasso, if these provisions were operative at this time, how would that have affected his practice?

So a patient comes to you with a certain orthopedic requirement that requires a certain level of treatment, and what does that do to you as a physician, as well as the patient?

On the issue of coming between the doctor and the patient, this legislation, the 2,733 pages, has 159 new boards, bureaucracies, and programs created--159.

When the President says you will be able to choose your health care, how in the world does that in any way comport with the fact that it requires every American to buy health insurance whether they want to or not, which, to me, raises a fundamental question, a constitutional question. Where in the Constitution does it say that we require every American to have a health insurance policy?

Finally, I would say there were a lot of impressive statements made during the Blair House meeting. I thought, frankly, Dr. Barrasso gave one of the most impressive ones I have heard. The perspective from practicing physicians is something that has all too often been absent from this debate.

I know my colleague paid attention when Congressman Paul Ryan gave his statement as far as the budgetary implications and the costs to Americans. It has been reprinted in the Wall Street Journal this morning. In 5 or 6 minutes, I think he encapsulated what this legislation does in laying out, in his view, a true 10-year cost of $2.3 trillion. He points out the gimmickry, and one of them, of course--the elephant in the room--is that you have 10 years of tax increases for $\1/2\ trillion and 10 years of cuts and $\1/2\ trillion to pay for 6 years of spending. Now, where in the world would you have a program that you pay for 10 years in taxes and cuts in benefits and have 6 years of benefits? So the true cost, the true cost over 10 years without the budget gimmickry is $2.3 trillion, and things such as $72 billion in claims and money from the CLASS Act--the list goes on and on.

So what I would ask Dr. Barrasso--we all trust the Congressional Budget Office. There is no doubt we all trust these people and their estimates, but their estimates are only as good as the proposals that are given to them. And I might add--again, I would request Dr. Barrasso's comments on this--that the President's proposal that was online was really an 11-page statement, and the Congressional Budget Office said they could not give a cost estimate because they didn't have sufficient information. So it is very clear, when you delay revenues until the year 2016, that obviously has budgetary impacts.

Finally, I would ask Dr. Barrasso to talk about this so-called doc fix which has been counted in the budget as reducing cost, and everybody knows we are not going to cut physician payments for treatment of Medicare patients. I think that would be an important one for Dr. Barrasso to discuss because I think it really encapsulates the kind of budget gimmickry that has gone on in the formation of this legislation.

For the benefit of our colleagues, could the Senator explain exactly what the doc fix means and how we got to it?

Which could not happen.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the Wall Street Journal piece authored by Congressman Paul Ryan.

Finally, Madam President, I find it incredibly cynical to tell the American people that the cost of this reform is going to be I believe $371 billion less than we all know it actually will be.

I ask Senator Barrasso, if those cuts were ever enacted, what is the prospect of any of the overwhelming majority of doctors just saying: I am not going to treat Medicare patients.

Well, I hope we will continue to be on the floor. Again, we need to talk about what the President said during his campaign about many things but including what I saw this morning on FOX News where he said you shouldn't govern with 50-plus-1 votes, that he was in opposition to that. I am sorry he does not remain in opposition to that.

I thank Dr. Barrasso and the Chair, and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending business be set aside for the purposes of offering an amendment, and that, of course, the vote on the amendment be decided by the majority leader and the Republican leader.

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

Mr. President, the President of the United States and the majority in both Houses have now signaled that regardless of how clearly the American people oppose the pending legislation concerning health care in America, it will be attempted to be forced down their throats under the parliamentary process that is intended

for our Nation's budgetary matters, whether they want it or not.

This amendment that is pending would remove our important Medicare Program from the partisan procedural process known as budget reconciliation. We must protect the Medicare Program from being used as a piggybank to create the new health care entitlement proposed by Senator Reid and President Obama. In addition to increasing taxes by $500 billion, the health care ``reform'' bill cuts $500 billion from Medicare to put the government in charge of a new $2.3 trillion health care entitlement that we can't afford.

My constituents in Arizona and Americans across the country know the partisan games that are being played here, and they are opposed to it. Our entitlement programs should not be the subject of reconciliation. In 1974, the Budget Act excluded Social Security from the 51-vote reconciliation process. That was intentional, by one of the major architects, Robert Byrd, one of the most revered Members of the Senate, who has also said that health care reform should not be the subject of reconciliation. That makes sense, because if you exclude Social Security because it is an entitlement program, then, obviously, Medicare should also be excluded. We have a crisis with our entitlement programs and they need to be reformed, but they shouldn't be subject to a 51-vote majority.

This amendment removes the Medicare Program from the reconciliation process. Medicare reforms need to be made, and this amendment doesn't affect that, but what the amendment says is that reforms to the Medicare Program should be treated differently just as the Social Security program is. A program as important as Medicare should not be cut or increased through a partisan 51-vote process. Something this important should be held to a higher standard and include bipartisan support.

Let me remind my colleagues of the view of then-Senator Obama in 2007 when we were considering the ``nuclear option.'' He said at that time:

You've got to break out of what I call, sort of, the 50-

plus-one pattern of presidential politics. Maybe you eke out

a victory of 50-plus-one, then you can't govern. You know,

you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks,

but you can't deliver on health care. We're not going to pass

universal health care with a 50-plus-one strategy.

On the use of reconciliation, then-Senator Obama went even further and said:

You know, the Founders designed this system, as frustrating

[as] it is, to make sure that there's a broad consensus

before the country moves forward . . . And what we have now

is a President who--

he was obviously referring to then-President Bush--

. . . [h]hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting,

you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think

would change the character of the Senate forever . . . And

what I worry about would be you essentially still have two

chambers--the House and the Senate--but you have simply

majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just

not what the founders intended.

I have been around this body for quite a while. Back a few years ago, when this side was in the majority and there was a movement toward the ``nuclear option''--in other words, 51 votes to confirm judges--I stood up as a member of the majority and said we should not erode the 60-vote majority rule that has prevailed here in the Senate for many years. At that time, that was not greeted on this side of the aisle, frankly, with approval by a lot of people. But what we did then was preserve the Senate tradition and process of 60 votes, and we should maintain that now.

Certainly, having been in the majority and in the minority, I understand the frustrations of the majority. But I think history will show there have been numerous occasions where the requirement for a 60- vote majority has prevented the Congress of the United States from acting at the will of the moment or the fancy or the issue; that when time passes and cooler heads prevail, the 60-vote majority prevented the Congress from acting in a way that would have been harmful to the United States of America and its citizens.

All of my other colleagues have also commented on this issue at different times, depending on whether they are in the majority or the minority. But I wish to point out again a fundamental fact of the way the Congress of the United States has done business in general, and the way the Senate of the United States has done business. We have never had in our history a major reform, whether it be the Civil Rights Act or whether it be the passage of Medicare, whether it be welfare reform or any other major reform made without a majority, and a significant majority, that was bipartisan in nature. That doesn't mean there was 100 percent, but there has always been, whenever major structural reforms have been made, a consensus that was a significant majority on both sides.

So as we have time after time on this floor, we will be coming to the floor every day, my colleagues and I, to urge the majority and the President of the United States to start over and sit down and work together.

Overwhelming majorities of the American people believe we should either stop or start over. Overwhelming majorities of the American people want us to reform the system. But they do not like this unsavory process of vote buying, and they certainly do not like the product.

We will continue to carry the message to our constituents and to the American people. I believe there is still sufficient time for the will of the American people to prevail.

Mr. President, the hour is late. I appreciate the patience of the Chair and his willingness to serve in the chair at this late hour, 7 o'clock at night. I appreciate him being here at this time.

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

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans' security at risk.

Specifically, this bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a ``high value detainee'' interagency team established by the President. This interagency team of experts in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation and law enforcement will have the protection of U.S. civilians and civilian facilities as their paramount responsibility and experience in gaining actionable intelligence from high value detainees.

These experts must, to the extent it is possible to do so, make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of a detainee being taken into custody. The experts then must submit their determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report it to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the final call.

A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate. I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring. Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary.

Additionally, the legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself.

It should come as no comfort to any American that nearly 8\1/2\ years after the attacks of 9/11 we still don't have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the act of trying to bring about attacks on the U.S. and our national security interests at home and abroad. What we saw with the Christmas Day bomber was a series of missteps and staggering failures in coordination among the most senior members of the administration's national security officials that have continued to be compounded by administration apologists who still don't seem to understand that repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2001 and 2002 is going to lead to the deaths of many more Americans.

The vast majority of Americans understand that what happened with the Christmas Day bomber was a near catastrophe that was only prevented by

sheer luck and the courage of a few of the passengers and crew. A wide majority of Americans also realize that allowing a terrorist to be interrogated for only 50 minutes before he is given a Miranda warning and told he can obtain a lawyer and stop cooperating is not sufficient.

Let me be clear about where I think the fault lies with our current policy. I believe that the local FBI agents who were involved with investigating the Detroit attack are patriotic Americans who are experts in the field of law enforcement. I hold the FBI in the highest regard and believe they set the standard for law enforcement professionalism not only in the U.S., but internationally. But it is impossible for FBI field agents to know all the information that is available to the U.S. intelligence community worldwide during the first 50 minutes of interrogation of a suspected terrorist. We must ensure that the broad range of expertise that is available within our government is brought to bear on such high-value detainees. This bill mandates such coordination and places the proper focus on getting intelligence to stop an attack, rather than allowing law enforcement and preparing a case for a civilian criminal trial to drive our response.

Deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians is an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery. We must recognize the difference. If we don't, our response will be hopelessly inadequate. We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers. Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack.

In closing, let me say that I hope that Congress and the administration support this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting suspected enemy belligerents. However, there is a lot more work that must be done. I am continuing to work with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others to address other crucial aspects of detainee policy.

As part of that effort, I believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court. While the law of war authorizes detention until the end of hostilities--something the Supreme Court has recognized and which is reinforced in this bill--I believe that a review system for the long-term detention of detainees should be set out in law. Additionally, both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit Court have urged Congress to provide uniform guidelines to apply in the habeas corpus cases that have been brought by detainees. Currently, the outcomes in the Guantanamo detainee habeas cases are inconsistent because of different interpretations of novel questions of law the judges face in applying habeas to wartime prisoners for the first time in our history. I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results. I do not believe that we will have addressed all the necessary detainee policy challenges until we do so, and my efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion.

While other detainee policy challenges remain, I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber--including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation--demand that Congress and the administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security. For that reason, we must have a clear policy, legal foundation, and mechanism for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, I rise to introduce legislation that sets forth a clear, comprehensive policy for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. This legislation seeks to ensure that the mistakes made during the apprehension of the Christmas Day bomber, such as reading him a Miranda warning, will never happen again and put Americans' security at risk.

Specifically, this bill would require unprivileged enemy belligerents suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. to be held in military custody and interrogated for their intelligence value by a ``high value detainee'' interagency team established by the President. This interagency team of experts in national security, terrorism, intelligence, interrogation and law enforcement will have the protection of U.S. civilians and civilian facilities as their paramount responsibility and experience in gaining actionable intelligence from high value detainees.

These experts must, to the extent it is possible to do so, make a preliminary determination whether the detainee is an unprivileged enemy belligerent within 48 hours of a detainee being taken into custody. The experts then must submit their determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report it to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the final call.

A key provision of this bill is that it would prohibit a suspected enemy belligerent from being provided with a Miranda warning and being told he has a right to a lawyer and a right to refuse to cooperate. I believe that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that when we capture a terrorist who is suspected of carrying out or planning an attack intended to kill hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians, our focus must be on gaining all the information possible to prevent that attack or any that may follow from occurring. Under these circumstances, actionable intelligence must be our highest priority and criminal prosecution must be secondary.

Additionally, the legislation would authorize detention of enemy belligerents without criminal charges for the duration of the hostilities consistent with standards under the law of war which have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Importantly, if a decision is made to hold a criminal trial after the necessary intelligence information is obtained, the bill mandates trial by military commission where we are best able to protect U.S. national security interests, including sensitive classified sources and methods, as well as the place and the people involved in the trial itself.

It should come as no comfort to any American that nearly 8\1/2\ years after the attacks of 9/11 we still don't have a clear mechanism, legal structure, and implementing policy for dealing with terrorists who we capture in the act of trying to bring about attacks on the U.S. and our national security interests at home and abroad. What we saw with the Christmas Day bomber was a series of missteps and staggering failures in coordination among the most senior members of the administration's national security officials that have continued to be compounded by administration apologists who still don't seem to understand that repeating the same mistakes that were made in 2001 and 2002 is going to lead to the deaths of many more Americans.

The vast majority of Americans understand that what happened with the Christmas Day bomber was a near catastrophe that was only prevented by

sheer luck and the courage of a few of the passengers and crew. A wide majority of Americans also realize that allowing a terrorist to be interrogated for only 50 minutes before he is given a Miranda warning and told he can obtain a lawyer and stop cooperating is not sufficient.

Let me be clear about where I think the fault lies with our current policy. I believe that the local FBI agents who were involved with investigating the Detroit attack are patriotic Americans who are experts in the field of law enforcement. I hold the FBI in the highest regard and believe they set the standard for law enforcement professionalism not only in the U.S., but internationally. But it is impossible for FBI field agents to know all the information that is available to the U.S. intelligence community worldwide during the first 50 minutes of interrogation of a suspected terrorist. We must ensure that the broad range of expertise that is available within our government is brought to bear on such high-value detainees. This bill mandates such coordination and places the proper focus on getting intelligence to stop an attack, rather than allowing law enforcement and preparing a case for a civilian criminal trial to drive our response.

Deliberate mass attacks that intentionally target hundreds of innocent civilians is an act of war and should not be dealt with in the same manner as a robbery. We must recognize the difference. If we don't, our response will be hopelessly inadequate. We should not be providing suspected terrorists with Miranda warnings and defense lawyers. Instead, the priority and focus must be on isolating and neutralizing the immediate threat and collecting intelligence to prevent another attack.

In closing, let me say that I hope that Congress and the administration support this legislation as part of a comprehensive solution for detaining, interrogating and prosecuting suspected enemy belligerents. However, there is a lot more work that must be done. I am continuing to work with Senator Graham, Senator Lieberman, and others to address other crucial aspects of detainee policy.

As part of that effort, I believe we must establish a system for long-term detention of terrorists who are too dangerous to release, but who cannot be tried in a civilian court. While the law of war authorizes detention until the end of hostilities--something the Supreme Court has recognized and which is reinforced in this bill--I believe that a review system for the long-term detention of detainees should be set out in law. Additionally, both the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the D.C. Circuit Court have urged Congress to provide uniform guidelines to apply in the habeas corpus cases that have been brought by detainees. Currently, the outcomes in the Guantanamo detainee habeas cases are inconsistent because of different interpretations of novel questions of law the judges face in applying habeas to wartime prisoners for the first time in our history. I will continue to work on a bipartisan basis to improve this process to obtain better, more uniform results. I do not believe that we will have addressed all the necessary detainee policy challenges until we do so, and my efforts will not stop until we have addressed all the detainee issues in a comprehensive fashion.

While other detainee policy challenges remain, I believe the handling of the Christmas Day bomber--including the law enforcement focus and the decision to read a Miranda warning after only 50 minutes of interrogation--demand that Congress and the administration first address the issue which is most crucial to our national security. For that reason, we must have a clear policy, legal foundation, and mechanism for the detention, interrogation and trial of enemy belligerents who are suspected of engaging in hostilities against the U.S. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting this important legislation.

Mr. President, as we all know, yesterday the President issued a letter that said he was agreeing on ``four policy priorities identified by Republican Members at the meeting'' that we had. And he said, ``I am exploring. I said throughout this process,'' I quote from the President's letter, ``that I'd continue to draw on the best ideas from both parties, and I'm open to these proposals in that spirit.''

So he mentioned several of them. In it, he talks about the four areas he would be considering: One by Senator Coburn, a proposal; another one that a number of people had discussed concerning demonstration projects through Health and Human Services for resolving medical malpractice disputes; one on Medicaid reimbursements; and then expanded health savings accounts.

He said: ``That's why my proposal does not include the Medicare Advantage provision, mentioned by Senator McCain at the meeting, which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other States. My proposal eliminates those payments, gradually reducing Medicare Advantage payments across the country relative to fee-for-service Medicare,'' et cetera.

Then he says, ``In addition, my proposal eliminates the Florida FMAP provision, replacing it with additional federal financing'' in all States.

Of course, this raises, I think, first of all, the legitimate question: How did this stuff get in there to start with? How did it take weeks of examining a 2,400-page bill? What about the other sweetheart deals that were included behind closed doors in this 2,400- page legislation? What about the deal for Vermont, a 2.2-percent Medicaid bonus for 6 years for their Medicaid Program? What about the Massachusetts deal, a .5-percent Medicaid bonus for 3 years? Hawaii? It adds money for Hawaii hospitals. Hospitals in Michigan and Connecticut have the option to benefit from higher payments; Connecticut, $100 million for a university hospital. The Senate beneficiary of this provision was not originally known. Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming had increased Medicare payments for those States.

What is unique about those States? Libby, MT, Medicare coverage for individuals exposed to environmental health hazards, asbestos mining. That may be a worthy cause, but shouldn't it be the subject of an authorization and debate and appropriations?

Then, of course, we had the special deals that were cut with the special interests, not just PhRMA. The White House negotiators--the White House negotiators not congressional negotiators--extracted an $80 billion deal to gain more offsets from the drug industry, and their $2- million-a-year lobbyists confirmed the deal in news reports. In exchange for PhRMA supporting the Democratic Senate bill, PhRMA spent $150 million in advertising support. And to further lock in the deal, the White House and Senate Democrats agreed to oppose drug reimportation and a shorter pathway for generic biologics.

To sum all this up, there is no better description of it than what is by the majority leader of the Senate, who, on Christmas Eve, when these deals became known as we examined the 2,400 pages, Senator Reid, the majority leader, said--this, I think, encapsules, summarizes the entire process they went through:

A number of States are treated differently from other

States. That's what legislation is all about. That's

compromise.

I want to repeat that. I want to repeat that quote from Senator Reid.

A number of States are treated differently from other

States. That's what legislation is all about. That's

compromise.

That is not compromise. That is not the word. ``Compromise'' is an agreement between two parties on both sides of the aisle who reach an agreement. This is backroom wheeler dealing, special interest influence, and vote buying. That is what this was. Why would a State be treated differently from another State? Why would we have disparate impact on different States?

One of the reasons I have focused a lot of my attention on the 800,000-person carve-out in the State of Florida, as the President has said that would be changed, is because there are 330,000 Medicare Advantage enrollees in my State. Why should it ever happen that the residents of one State who are in the same program, the exact same Federal program, have different advantages over another State?

I am pleased the President's letter concerning the issue of the 800,000 people in Florida who will receive different coverage, that that would be fixed. But I also point out, as I just chronicled, that is one of many proposals, many sweetheart deals, many backroom deals. It has to be put in the context of the fact that the President of the United States promised the American people that we would change the climate in Washington. Eight times the President of the United States said all of these negotiations on health care reform will take place with C-SPAN cameras in the room.

My understanding of the process now is that there is going to be a vote in the House on the Senate bill and then there will be a reconciliation of 51 votes, which, of course, is offensive to the American people. But I assume, then, the Senate bill as passed will have all of these provisions in it that are these secret, backroom, unsavory deals that were made.

So let me just say it is disappointing, the contrast of the President's statement, when we have learned that last week's health care summit was not really a true effort. In other words, the summit at the Blair House did not reflect what the overwhelming majority

of the American people are demanding; that is, we start over and we stop what has been done.

One of the reasons they want it stopped is because they have become aware of these special deals for special interests and vote purchasing. That is what they have become aware of. So that is one of the major reasons they want us to start over.

At the townhall meetings I have, people are as upset about the process we went through as they are the actual legislative outcome, although they are very unhappy about that.

Let me just say I know a bit about working in a bipartisan fashion. I know people want us to get things done together. I know the approval ratings of Congress are extremely low, and there is a great disconnect between the people of this country and what we are doing in Washington, and they want us to work together, adhering to principle and addressing the enormous challenges that face them. But that means starting over.

We did identify areas on which we could agree. We did identify the fact that there are some areas. But unless we start over, then how in the world can we put lipstick on a pig? It is still a pig. It is still a bad and unsavory process that we went through in order to reach the legislative package we have now.

What we really need to do is start over and then we can get rid of all of these. We can get rid of the ``Louisiana purchase,'' and Vermont and Massachusetts and Hawaii and Michigan, Connecticut--Connecticut twice, one $100 million for a hospital and then higher payments-- Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Wyoming. We can get rid of all of these if we start over.

I point out, finally, because we are going to be talking a lot about this--and I know other colleagues of mine are waiting to speak--I just point out again this whole issue of reconciliation. A lot of Americans had never heard that word before, certainly not in this context before this came up. But the word ``reconciliation'' means we would reconcile differences on small issues between the two bodies. It was the product of Senator Robert Byrd, who has said unequivocally that health care-- that Medicare and health care should not be included in this process. It was Senator Robert Byrd who specifically exempted Social Security from being a part of reconciliation. He said, and I quote from Senator Robert Byrd:

I was one of the authors of the legislation that created

the budget reconciliation process in 1974 and I am certain

that putting health care reform and climate change

legislation on a freight train through Congress is an outrage

that must be resisted.

That was the author. Of course, all during the time when the other side of the aisle was in the minority they complained bitterly, and I think with some justification, that reconciliation was used as a means of getting legislation through this body, bypassing the 60-vote requirement.

I would like to point out--and it may be a bit self-serving, but I would like to point out that when the so-called nuclear option was up, we would move to a process that only 51 votes would be required in order to confirm judges in this body, I and 13 others joined in a bipartisan fashion, and we said no. We will have circumstances that will attend our votes on confirmation and, for the good of the body, we preserved the 60-vote majority rule that has been the custom in this institution of the Senate in modern times.

The American people are watching very carefully what we are doing. There may be some belief that a lot of Americans are not appreciating what apparently is the plan, and that is to move serious legislation through the Senate with a 51-vote majority, legislation that would affect one-sixth of our gross national product.

I urge my colleagues, as I did when we were considering the ``nuclear option on judges,'' that this nuclear option also be rejected and go back to the 60 votes and maintain the 60-vote majority requirement that basically governs our proceedings in the Senate.

Let's start over. Let's listen to Warren Buffett, a strong supporter of the President of the United States. He noted that this legislation includes nonsense, backroom deals for special interests.

He said:

Democrats should cut off all the kinds of things like the

800,000 special people in Florida or the Corn Husker

kickback, as they called it, or the Louisiana Purchase, and

we are going to get rid of the nonsense. We are just going to

focus on costs and we are not going to dream up 2,000 pages

of other things.

I hope we will heed the words of Warren Buffet, which basically is that he and the American people want us to start over. They certainly do not want to have legislation enacted by a bare majority. Again, I would remind my colleagues of history. Every major reform that has been enacted by this body, whether it be the Civil Rights Act, whether it be Medicare, whether it be other major reform, it has always been done with overwhelming bipartisan support.

It is not too late. Let's go back to the beginning. Let's start over. We have identified areas we can work together on and certainly reject this idea of 51 votes governing the way this body functions. I think it poses great danger to the future of this institution that all of us who have the privilege of serving here love as well.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I missed rollcall vote No. 24, the motion to waive the Budget Act with respect to the motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 2847, with the Reid amendment No. 3310. I was regrettably detained due to the fact that I was serving as the ranking member at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. If I had been present, I would have voted to sustain the point of order.

Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--

31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled.

In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked agents.

We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities across Iran.

We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international community struggle to see.

Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it does is up to the Iranian people.

This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions.

It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that came from.

I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their fellow citizens.

Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of U.S. Senators.

This bill has two parts.

First, it would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes.

Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations.

In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people.

Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of Iran's citizens.

Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves.

The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

Mr. President, February 11, 2010, was the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. For most Iranians, the Islamic Republic is the only government they have ever known, and unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--

31 years of economic potential lost and the resources of a great and proud nation stolen by a corrupt ruling elite; 31 years of a regime that puts its own selfish interests and those of foreign terrorist groups ahead of the needs of the Iranian people; 31 years of justice denied, freedom curtailed, and dignity trampled.

In recent months, the world has watched in awe as hundreds of thousands of Iranians have said ``enough,'' and demanded better for themselves. They have taken to the streets and the Internet, risking the violent reprisal of a regime without conscience, in order to insist on their universal human rights. In television news clips and YouTube videos, in Twitter updates and countless online exchanges, the world has seen the naked oppression of the Iranian regime and its masked agents.

We have watched as peaceful Iranian demonstrators for human rights have been beaten, and shot--even murdered--in the streets of cities across Iran.

We have watched as Iranian men and women--many not more than young boys and girls--have been rounded up in their homes and dormitories, and hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country, where the eyes of the international community struggle to see.

Just a few months ago, we watched as a young woman named Neda was shot in broad daylight by agents of the Iranian government. And as that young woman bled to death in the street, it became clear to me and many others that this was the beginning of the end of the Islamic Republic. After 31 years, that day cannot come soon enough, but how and when it does is up to the Iranian people.

This struggle continues in Iran. On February 11, many Iranians took to the streets again to demonstrate peacefully for freedom and justice. Again, many were beaten. Again, many were detained unlawfully. Again, many were no doubt tortured--and worse. The world has watched these abuses long enough. Now the world must act. It is long past time for democratic, law-abiding nations to stand up together, to speak with one voice, and to show these courageous Iranian human rights advocates that the free world is on their side. The recent statement between the U.S. and the European Union supporting human rights in Iran is a welcome development, and I hope to see more and more such joint actions.

It is also long past time for the U.N. Security Council to impose the crippling sanctions on the Iranian government that have been promised for so long. As that negotiation drags on, individual countries should not refrain from taking their own individual actions to impose pressure on the rulers of Iran for failing to abide by their own international agreements, both security agreements and human rights agreements. In that vein, I was pleased to see the White House recently announce a new set of sanctions against four Iranian entities and one individual active in Iran's nuclear program. I hope there is a lot more where that came from.

I do not wish, however, to confine our sanctions effort only to those persons in Iran who threaten our security and that of our allies, either through their support for terrorism or Iran's weapons programs. I also want to bring the full force of America's economic power to bear against those in Iran who threaten that country's peaceful human rights and democracy activists. That is why, just a few weeks ago, I sought to introduce an amendment to the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act, which would impose targeted sanctions on persons in Iran who violate the human rights of their fellow citizens.

Building on that earlier effort, today I am introducing, together with my good friend and colleague Senator Joe Lieberman, the Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act, which is co-sponsored by a broad bipartisan group of U.S. Senators.

This bill has two parts.

First, it would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families, no matter where in the world those abuses occur. I want to stress: This would be a public list, posted for all the world to see on the websites of the State and Treasury Departments. We will shine a light on the names of Iran's human rights abusers, and we will make them famous for their crimes.

Second, this bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas, and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means, freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, and ending all their financial transactions with U.S. banks and other entities. If passed into law, this would be the first time the U.S. Government has ever imposed punitive measures against persons in Iran because of their human rights violations.

In short, under this bill, Iranian human rights abusers would be completely cut off from the global reach of the U.S. financial system, and that would send a powerful signal to every country, company, and bank in the world that they should think twice about doing business with the oppressors of the Iranian people.

Over the past year, the President has made every effort to extend a hand to the Iranian government--to seek to overcome 31 years of painful history, and to search for common ground on matters of common interest. Unfortunately, the President's generosity has been met defiantly, again and again, with the clenched fist of Iran's rulers--a fist that is increasingly stained with the blood of the Iranian people. It should now be clear that the Iranian regime has no desire to meet its international responsibilities and every desire to use all the tools of violence and repression at its disposal to crush the peaceful aspirations of Iran's citizens.

Faced with this disturbing reality, America must lead an international effort to support the human rights of the Iranian people, and to put that effort at the center of our policy toward Iran. We must encourage our international partners, especially our European allies, to do the same, and to impose their own targeted sanctions on Iran's human rights abusers. This is not about picking winners in an internal Iranian matter. It is about standing up for the universal values we hold dear, and championing the cause of all who seek to secure those values for themselves.

The Iran Human Rights Sanctions Act is an important start of this effort, and I encourage my colleagues in Congress to move quickly and pass it into law.

Madam President, I wanted to take a moment to discuss the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 that Senator Dorgan and I introduced earlier this month. This legislation has been widely discussed since introduction and many falsehoods and misstatements regarding it have been raised. I want to take a moment to clarify what this bill will and will not do if passed into law.

We introduced this legislation at the request of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, Major League Baseball, National Basketball Association, National Football League, National Hockey League, U.S. Olympic Committee, American College of Sports Medicine, American Swimming Coaches Association, National Collegiate Athletic Association, PGA Tour, U.S. Lacrosse, U.S. Tennis Association, U.S.A. Cycling, U.S.A. Gymnastics, U.S.A. Swimming, U.S.A. Track and Field, and U.S.A. Triathlon. Additionally, scores of parents, spouses and high school athletic coaches requested action by Congress or the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to assist them in ensuring the safety of dietary supplements.

I am proud that this legislation is so widely supported. However, opponents to this bill and their well-paid Washington lobbyists have spread false statements and rumors about the legislation, which is really a disservice to consumers, and instead proudly boast that they remain largely untouchable by the FDA.

This legislation would simply require dietary supplements to list all ingredients on the packaging, mandate that all dietary manufacturers register with the Food and Drug Administration--FDA--to ensure the FDA knows what is being sold and provide the FDA mandatory recall authority of any dietary supplement if the FDA finds the supplement to be hazardous to one's health.

Opponents have stated that the legislation would seek to limit consumers' ability to purchase dietary supplements, vitamins or prescription drugs. That is completely false. Opponents also claim the bill establishes a new regulatory structure for dietary supplements at the Food and Drug Administration. That is completely false. Opponents claim that this bill was only introduced to rein in a few athletes who took supplements and then tested positive for steroids or other substances banned by sports leagues. That is completely false.

This bill was introduced for the nearly half of all Americans who take a dietary supplement. People have died from taking dietary supplements, including a young mother and wife who lived in my home State, and thousands have had to be hospitalized or seen by a doctor due to an adverse reaction from a dietary supplement. It took nearly 10 years--and then a lengthy court battle--for the FDA to ban the inclusion of ephedra in dietary supplements after ephedra was linked to a number of deaths. Such a delay should never happen again.

Additionally, the more than 100 million Americans who consume dietary supplements should be able to know the ingredients of any supplement, and these supplements need to be required to be listed on the product's packaging. If you go to a grocery store and pick up a box of cereal, bread, yogurt or any product off the shelf, you can read the

product's label to clearly know the ingredients and be sure you aren't eating something that you find concerning, hazardous or unhealthy. Those who take dietary supplements should have the same option. Simply put, this legislation is about truth in labeling. This legislation is about giving consumers choice. If you take a vitamin now, this bill will in no way restrict your ability to take that vitamin. But the consumer needs to know the entirety of what is contained in that pill.

Additionally, clear labeling could save lives as it did for a Phoenix Suns star who took a dietary supplement sleep aid and stopped breathing. Fortunately, his teammates found the supplement bottle that listed the ingredients, and the emergency room doctors were able to use the information to give him an antidote in the emergency room moments later and save his life. The disclosure of ingredients on a dietary supplement can save lives; and therefore, it should be mandatory. With the new ``buzz word'' in Washington being ``transparency,'' I don't understand how any lawmaker could oppose such a requirement.

Mr. President, first, I thank my friend, the Senator from Delaware, for his strong statement. I thank him for his support of freedom and democracy in Iran. I thank him for his longtime advocacy of human rights. I and others are pleased to have the opportunity to work with him in a common cause of human rights and democracy. I thank the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have a colloquy with the Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I am aware of the time constraints of being in morning business.

Mr. President, today is the 31st anniversary of the Islamic Republic. Unfortunately, it is a record that many would rather forget--31 years of economic potential lost, stolen by a corrupt elite. We know what has gone on over the last 31 years.

Right now, as we speak, if anyone watching wants to turn on cable news,

turn on FOX News, they will see videos coming out of Tehran of innocent people, young and old, being beaten and tortured and taken away to prison where unspeakable things are done to them as the people of Iran are standing up and demonstrating, again, their commitment, their courage, their sacrifice on behalf of a free and open democracy and society. We are watching as Iranian men and women, many not more than young boys and girls, are rounded up in their homes and dormitories, hauled away unlawfully to face torture and other abuses in the darkest corners of the country where the eyes of the international community struggle to see. These are unacceptable, unspeakable crimes that are being committed on the Iranian people, and we and the world must stand up against it. I appreciate being part of an effort, along with my friend from Connecticut--both sides, a bipartisan effort--to take action on the part of these people in Iran. Turn on FOX News, I say to my friends. They will see the videos coming out of Tehran of the brutality that is being inflicted on innocent Iranians who are trying to just have the God-given right to freedom and democracy.

I thank my friend from Connecticut. This resolution we are submitting today has two parts. It would require the President to compile a public list of individuals in Iran who, starting with the Presidential election last June, are complicit in human rights violations against Iranian citizens and their families. No matter where in the world these abuses occur, I want to stress this will be a public list. You will know their names. You will know their faces. You will know what they have done. And we will make them famous. They are war criminals, and they should be taken to The Hague for trial. The bill would then ban these Iranian individuals from receiving U.S. visas and impose on them the full battery of sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. That means freezing any assets and blocking any property they hold under U.S. jurisdiction, et cetera.

This Nation has always stood for the human rights of people throughout the world. We stood up for the people behind the Iron Curtain. We provided Lech Walesa with a printing press. Now we need to help the Iranian people with the means to use the Internet to communicate, to resist.

I hear back and forth that the Iranian people are without a leader. They have leaders. They have thousands and thousands of leaders who are in the streets right now demonstrating for freedom and putting their very lives at risk.

I thank my colleague from Connecticut and ask him if he has additional comments on this disturbing reality that is unfolding before our eyes as we stand on the floor of the Senate.

Will the Senator yield? I also heard that the wife of one of the opposition leaders was beaten in the streets today. Did the Senator hear that?

Mr. President, I ask my friend, I believe that last year an attempt was made to establish some kind of relationship and dialog with the Iranian Government--in other words, to have an unclenched fist. Will my friend comment on what success that has been?

Mr. President, I say to my friend from Connecticut, isn't it also true that there are certain elements who say: Don't do these things--the sanctions and actions we are trying to take--you only hurt the Iranian people. Isn't it true that the demonstrators in the streets of Tehran were chanting: Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them?

What would be the effect on the Iranian people if we impose these sanctions?

Finally, I would like to ask my friend, we were together in Munich over the weekend. The Foreign Minister of Iran came and spoke. I wish everyone in the world could have seen that performance-- one, a complete denial that they are on the path to acquisition of nuclear weapons, and, perhaps as important, a denial that any human rights abuses were taking place anywhere in that country. It was a remarkable display of hypocrisy and outright lying.

I know we are running out of time, but I want to say to my friend that history does repeat itself. There was a time during the Cold War when Ronald Reagan spoke out and mentioned Natan Sharansky's name and he was beaten for it. People said he shouldn't have done that, but Ronald Reagan said: Take down this wall. People said that was provocative toward the Soviet Union. You know what Natan Sharansky said, after he was released from the prison? He said: Those words reverberated throughout the gulag and gave hope for democracy and freedom, and made them even more steadfast and encouraged them in the face of the brutality they underwent in the Soviet gulag.

That is the same message we are sending to the Iranian people with this legislation. I hope we will enact it soon. We will not slack nor will we give up until the Iranian people have their God-given rights restored to them.

Mr. President, I yield the remainder of my time.

Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the nomination of Mr. Craig Becker to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board. Mr. Craig Becker is the first person--I repeat, the first person-- nominated for a term on the National Labor Relations Board who comes directly from a labor organization.

Mr. Becker is an officer and associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions, the AFL-CIO and the SEIU. These unions clearly have a substantial interest in the most important decisions presently pending before the Board.

Now, it is one thing to come from private law practice representing employers or unions as clients under the circumstances. It is quite another to come to the Board directly from being an officer and associate general counsel of a labor organization with, as mentioned, substantial interests in multiple matters pending or that will be pending before the Board.

Last week's hearing was clearly necessary, as it revealed that while Mr. Becker will recuse himself for a period of 2 years, and only for 2 years, from those instances when his former employers, the international unions, are a party in a Board proceeding, he did not commit to recuse himself from cases raising issues in which the internationals are involved or impacted, and he did not commit to recuse himself from cases involving the locals of those two international unions.

Parties before the Board, whether union or employer, have a right to a fair and impartial tribunal. The confirmation of an officer and associate general counsel of two of our Nation's largest unions for a term on the National Labor Relations Board will make the appearance of justice and many of the decisions in which he participates impossible to achieve.

Further, to the extent he interprets the act to adopt the policy imperatives of the SEIU or the AFL-CIO and not those expressed by Congress in the act, he will further undermine the Board and sow cynicism in the labor/management community as well as amongst workers whose rights to engage in protected concerted activity or refrain from doing so are protected under the act.

Mr. Becker's writings suggest that he believes the Board can implement provisions of the Employee Free Choice Act into labor law through decisions of the Board. This view suggesting the Board can do what Congress has not authorized should raise concerns with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

Let me read a quote from Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Stewart Acuff, the AFL-CIO's director of organizing from a February 3, 2010, posting on the Huffington Post. This is just last week.

We are very close to the 60 votes we need. If we are not

able to pass the Employee Free Choice Act, we will work with

President Obama and Vice President Biden and their appointees

to the National Labor Relations Board to change the rules

governing forming a union through administrative action to

once again allow workers in America access to one of the most

basic freedoms in a democracy.

This is clear. This is clear. Mr. Becker's colleague, Mr. Acuff, clearly indicates what Mr. Becker's agenda would be, which would be to violate what is absolutely only a prerogative of the Congress of the United States. This type of bias is why the most respected business groups in America are opposing Mr. Becker's nomination. A statement opposing Mr. Becker's nomination from the National Association of Manufacturers, the Nation's largest industrial trade association, states:

The NAM firmly believes that NLRB members charged with

administering our nation's labors laws should protect the

principles of fairness and balance that characterize our

labor law system. Employees should have the right to

information from both employers and union officials and the

time to review that information in order to better make

important decisions that impact their jobs and families.

Unfortunately, Mr. Becker's interpretation of our labor

laws does not reflect these principles and casts serious

doubt on his ability to administer our nation's laws in an

unbiased manner. We are particularly concerned with Mr.

Becker's writings in academic journals that argue that the

NLRB should limit the ability of employers to communicate

with their employees during union organizing campaigns.

Specifically, Mr. Becker has claimed in a 1993 Minnesota Law

Review article that ``the core defect in union election law .

. . is the employer's status as a party to labor

representation proceedings.''

Mr. Becker has asserted views that the NLRB should rewrite

union election rules in favor of union organizers. Such

policy decisions should only be determined by Congress. The

NAM is particularly concerned that if confirmed, Mr. Becker

would seek to advance aspects of the jobs-killing Employee

Free Choice Act through actions of the NLRB.

From the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, that has only opposed three nominees in the last 30 years, I quote from the U.S. Chamber's statement:

This is only the third time in more than 30 years that the

Chamber has opposed a nominee to the Board, most recently the

1993 nomination of William B. Gould. Mr. Becker has written

prolifically about the National Labor Relations Act, the law

he would be charged with interpreting and enforcing should he

be confirmed. Many of the positions taken in his writings are

well outside the mainstream and would disrupt years of

established precedent and the delicate balance in current

labor law. These positions have raised significant concerns

in the employer community. Among those concerns are the

extent to which Mr. Becker would restrictively interpret

employers' free speech rights and the extent to which he

would seek to expand the use of intermittent strikes and

other forms of work stoppages that disrupt the right of

employers to maintain operations during labor disputes.

There may be no one ever nominated to the NLRB more opposed by the business community in the entire history of the NLRB. Are we to believe that the President could not find a single person in America who would not elicit this kind of response due to their bias? Last week, over 500 employers signed a letter opposing Mr. Becker's nomination; 23 major business associations oppose Mr. Becker's nomination.

Mr. Becker's views speak for themselves. But his supporters on the left have explained in full view why they are attempting to seat Mr. Becker. From the authors in the left-leaning publication, The Nation, ``Obama's Pro-Union Nominations to the Labor

Relations Board Stalled,'' January 20, 2010:

The battle over nominations to the NLRB, even more than

EFCA, may be what really determine the extent of labor's

gains under Obama. Should Obama persevere and see his

nominations confirmed, there is reason to believe that much

of what organized labor hopes to accomplish via EFCA will be

realized through the rule-making power of the NLRB.

If there was any doubt about the euphoria on the left, look

no further than what Wade Rathke, the chief organizer of

Community Organizations International, formally Acorn

International, founder and chief organizer of Acorn, and

founder and chief organizer of Local 100, Service Employees

International Union, recently wrote:

For my money Craig [Becker's] signal contribution has been

his work in crafting and executing the legal strategies which

have allowed the . . . effective organization of informal

workers--home health and home day care--has been the great,

exceptional success story within the American labor movement

for our generation, leading us to the [forced dues] of

perhaps a half-million such workers in unions such as SEIU,

AFSCME, CWA, and the AFT.

Becker is ``the key lawyer from the beginning in the early

1980s who was able to piece together the arguments and

representation that allowed those of us involved in trying to

organize home health care workers in Illinois, Massachusetts,

and elsewhere. . . . [Becker's] role was often behind the

scenes devising the strategy with the organizer and lawyers,

writing the briefs for others to file, and putting all of the

pieces together, but he was the go-to-guy on all of this.''

Rathke concludes:

I can remember Keith Kelleher negotiating the subsidy for

the SEIU Local 880 in Chicago and always making sure there

was the money for the organizers, but that SEIU was also

willing to allow access to Craig. . . .

I just received this, from Alison Reardon of the Service Employees International Union, who came out with an e-mail today that reads:

Senator, your attendance is crucial to appointing Craig

Becker to the National Labor Relations Board. Please attend

Thursday's HELP [executive] Session to report out President

Obama's nomination of Craig Becker for Senate confirmation.

This is the highest priority for organized labor, and

Majority Leader Reid will file Cloture on Friday 2/5, and has

assured us [the] Senate will vote to end debate at 5 p.m.

Monday 2/8.

So when this President was elected, he said he would govern from the center. If Craig Becker's nomination is approved, we will see the undermining of a longstanding practice in labor law that should be the prerogative of the United States Congress.

If the Congress of the United States, in its wisdom, or ignorance, decides to pass EFCA, then that is an act of Congress. It should not happen. Card check should not happen because of an unelected bureaucracy, and the National Labor Relations Board is the one to do it. Mr. Becker would have that, obviously my conclusion, on his agenda.

I urge my colleagues to vote no on the cloture motion on Mr. Becker's nomination.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 with my colleague Senator Dorgan. This bill would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, regulation of dietary supplements to ensure the safety of the millions of Americans who use them daily. The proposed legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register with the FDA and disclose a full list of ingredients contained in each supplement. Currently, these companies do not have to submit such information before their products are offered for sale to consumers.

A little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players, including two players from one of the teams competing this Sunday, for violating the league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary supplement they believed to be safe and legal. Additionally, a recent GAO study, GAO-09-250, found that a record number of young Americans are using dietary supplements naively believing these supplements are safe and approved by the FDA for sale. However, FDA does not have a pre-market approval process. In a recent article published in The New York Times, it was reported that Americans spent almost $24 billion on dietary supplements last year. Close to $3 billion of that total is estimated to have come from manufactures that frequently advertise their products as alternatives to anabolic steroids, which are used for increasing muscle mass and strength.

The current regulatory process does not adequately address the problem. Manufactures of dietary supplements are not required to demonstrate that their product is safe and effective before it is offered for sale to the public. The dietary supplement industry is one that is mostly self-regulated. However, manufacturers have failed to disclose to their customers key ingredients that may harm a consumer's health.

For this reason, the proposed bill would require manufacturers to register the locations they manufacture these supplements, the products they are making, and disclose the ingredients found in their products with the FDA. Furthermore, dietary supplement companies would be required to provide a 75 day pre-market notice to the FDA not only for New Dietary Ingredients, but for all products containing steroids, including hormones, pro-hormones, and hormone analogues, and must establish that the product is safe for its intended use.

Lastly, the proposed legislation provides the FDA with mandatory recall authority if a product is found to be unsafe or harmful. Had this provision been in place earlier, the FD might not have taken 10 years to ban ephedra, a dietary ingredient that accounted for 64 percent of all adverse reactions in 2001, despite accounting for 1 percent of all total dietary supplement sales. It has been reported that use of ephedra contributed to the deaths of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler and Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer. Sadly and unfortunately, there are numerous stories of amateur athletes who took this supplement and experienced serious health problems.

Legitimate dietary supplement companies should have nothing to fear from this legislation. These additional requirements are critical to the FDA's ability to evaluate the safety of particular dietary ingredients and to quickly identify and notify all dietary supplement manufacturers and consumers of ingredients with known safety risks. People's lives and dreams have been significantly impacted by illegitimate supplements. The purpose of the bill is not to create a sweeping regulatory structure, but instead a targeted structure that provides for openness, transparency and safety. All Americans should know the ingredients of any dietary supplement they use and the FDA must have the tools necessary to ensure the safety of all Americans.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by all the major sports leagues, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League,

and the National Hockey League. Additionally, the legislation is supported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the United States Olympic Committee, the American College of Sports Medicine, National College Athletic Association, NCAA, and the PGA Tour. I hope my colleagues will join these organizations in supporting this needed legislation.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce the Dietary Supplement Safety Act of 2010 with my colleague Senator Dorgan. This bill would strengthen the Food and Drug Administration's, FDA, regulation of dietary supplements to ensure the safety of the millions of Americans who use them daily. The proposed legislation would require manufacturers of dietary supplements to register with the FDA and disclose a full list of ingredients contained in each supplement. Currently, these companies do not have to submit such information before their products are offered for sale to consumers.

A little over a year ago the NFL suspended six players, including two players from one of the teams competing this Sunday, for violating the league's anti-doping policy. Several of the players were surprised that they tested positive for a banned substance because they used a dietary supplement they believed to be safe and legal. Additionally, a recent GAO study, GAO-09-250, found that a record number of young Americans are using dietary supplements naively believing these supplements are safe and approved by the FDA for sale. However, FDA does not have a pre-market approval process. In a recent article published in The New York Times, it was reported that Americans spent almost $24 billion on dietary supplements last year. Close to $3 billion of that total is estimated to have come from manufactures that frequently advertise their products as alternatives to anabolic steroids, which are used for increasing muscle mass and strength.

The current regulatory process does not adequately address the problem. Manufactures of dietary supplements are not required to demonstrate that their product is safe and effective before it is offered for sale to the public. The dietary supplement industry is one that is mostly self-regulated. However, manufacturers have failed to disclose to their customers key ingredients that may harm a consumer's health.

For this reason, the proposed bill would require manufacturers to register the locations they manufacture these supplements, the products they are making, and disclose the ingredients found in their products with the FDA. Furthermore, dietary supplement companies would be required to provide a 75 day pre-market notice to the FDA not only for New Dietary Ingredients, but for all products containing steroids, including hormones, pro-hormones, and hormone analogues, and must establish that the product is safe for its intended use.

Lastly, the proposed legislation provides the FDA with mandatory recall authority if a product is found to be unsafe or harmful. Had this provision been in place earlier, the FD might not have taken 10 years to ban ephedra, a dietary ingredient that accounted for 64 percent of all adverse reactions in 2001, despite accounting for 1 percent of all total dietary supplement sales. It has been reported that use of ephedra contributed to the deaths of Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler and Minnesota Vikings player Korey Stringer. Sadly and unfortunately, there are numerous stories of amateur athletes who took this supplement and experienced serious health problems.

Legitimate dietary supplement companies should have nothing to fear from this legislation. These additional requirements are critical to the FDA's ability to evaluate the safety of particular dietary ingredients and to quickly identify and notify all dietary supplement manufacturers and consumers of ingredients with known safety risks. People's lives and dreams have been significantly impacted by illegitimate supplements. The purpose of the bill is not to create a sweeping regulatory structure, but instead a targeted structure that provides for openness, transparency and safety. All Americans should know the ingredients of any dietary supplement they use and the FDA must have the tools necessary to ensure the safety of all Americans.

I am proud that this legislation is supported by all the major sports leagues, including Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League,

and the National Hockey League. Additionally, the legislation is supported by the United States Anti-Doping Agency, the United States Olympic Committee, the American College of Sports Medicine, National College Athletic Association, NCAA, and the PGA Tour. I hope my colleagues will join these organizations in supporting this needed legislation.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object, though I will not object, but I just want to point out the importance of this legislation. I think it deserves a rollcall vote. In discussions with the majority leader and the Republican leader, we will hopefully get a rollcall vote on the conference report.

This situation in Iran is terrible, and it is worsening. People are dying in the streets of Iran as we speak. The amendment I had proposed and that I had hoped for--and maybe we can have the conferees include it--would have required the President to draw up a list of persons in Iran who have committed human rights abuses or actions of violence against Iranian civilians engaging in peaceful political activity. The amendment I would have proposed would require that the list be made public so the enemies and oppressors of the Iranian people can't hide from their crimes--the world would know their names--and then we could impose visa bans, asset freezes, financial and banking sanctions, et cetera.

In the streets of Iran today the Iranian students are chanting: Obama, Obama, are you with us or are you with them? I appreciate the President's recent statements in support of democracy in Iran. I am pleased to hear that. I am pleased to see articles, such as this one in Newsweek magazine--``Enough Is Enough''--and other support for serious action against Iran that some months ago did not support such action.

The time of the majority leader and the Republican leader is valuable, so I would just summarize by saying: This is an important issue, Madam President. We have a country on the road to acquisition of nuclear weapons. We have brutality and oppression in the streets. We have unspeakable brutality taking place in the prisons, and people have been killed. A young woman by the name of Neda bled to death on the street of Tehran before the entire world.

So I hope we will be able to impose these and other necessary actions against this tyrannical, oppressive, brutal regime in Iran that I think is coming apart. We want to be on their side, and we want the Iranian people to know we are on their side.

I appreciate the accommodation of the majority leader as well as the Republican leader, and I know they share my commitment, as does my esteemed and wonderful friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman.

So I will not object.