Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the deteriorating human rights situation in Iran.

We understand that Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei--Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff will be arriving in the United States as early as tomorrow.

Mr. Mashaei is a close friend and trusted adviser of President Ahmadinejad. Their kinship began in 1982 when President Ahmadinejad was governor of Khoy in West Azerbaijan and the Intelligence Ministry appointed Mr. Mashaei to the security team in the Kurdistan region next door. Since then, Mr. Mashaei has been a member of Ahmadinejad's inner circle.

The world knows of President Ahmadinejad's public incitement against Jews and Israel--most infamously with his pledge to wipe Israel off the map. But the world may not know the virulent anti-Israel and anti- Semitic views of his trusted adviser.

In 2008, Mr. Mashaei told Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmad al- Bashir:

The corrupt and criminal Zionist regime is harming not only

the Arab and Islamic world, but humanity in its entirety . .

. in order to save humanity from its different crises, there

is no other way other than the limiting of Zionist influence

on human society, because the root and origin of most of the

world's current crises are related to Zionism.

Shortly after the discredited Iranian Presidential election in June 2009, Mr.

Mashaei was appointed Presidential Chief of Staff--after a very brief and unsuccessful attempt to serve as the first Vice President of Iran.

Since then, the persecution and repression in Iran has steadily increased. Thousands of peaceful protesters, dissidents and activists have been detained.

Let there be no doubt, Mr. Mashei, like his President, is directly responsible for human rights abuses in Iran. He should not be granted a visa to enter the United States and he, like his President, should be designated under U.S. law as a human rights abuser in Iran.

Mr. Mashaei's visit will come just 4 days after the United Nations Secretary-General released an interim report on the human rights in Iran.

The report states:

The human rights situation in Iran has been marked by an

intensified crackdown on human rights defenders, woman's

rights activists, journalists and government opponents.

Concerns about torture, arbitrary detentions and unfair

trials continue to be raised by UN human rights mechanisms.

Additionally:

Discrimination persisted against minority groups, in some

cases amounting to persecution.

A worrying trend is the increased number of cases in which

political prisoners are accused of Mohareb--or enmity against

God--offences which carry the death penalty.

At least 22 people charged with Mohareb have been executed since January 2010.

Journalists, bloggers, human rights defenders and lawyers continue to be arrested or subjected to travel bans. Blogs and Web sites are restricted and now more than 10 national dailies have been shut down for refusing to toe the official line.

Concern remains over a lack of due process rights and the failure to respect the rights of detainees.

Particularly, ``concerns were expressed at routine practice for incommunicado detention, use of torture and ill-treatment in detention, use of solitary confinement and of individuals without charges.''

Finally, ``concerns were expressed in public about people sentenced to death often do not have access to legal representation and their families and lawyers are not even informed of the execution.''

The report continues to detail the Iranian persecution of religious minorities, especially the Baha'i. The report notes concern for six members of the Baha'i community arrested by officials from the Intelligence Ministry in the months of June and July 2010--and the seven Baha'i community leaders recently sentenced to 10 years in prison.

Regarding Iran's persecution of its Kurdish minority, the report notes:

Members of the Kurdish community have continued to be

executed on various national security-related charges

including Mohareb. At least nine Kurdish political prisoners,

including Jafar Kazemi, Mohammad Ali Haj Aghaei, and Ali

Saremi were executed since January 2010, and several others

remain at risk of execution.

And regarding Iran's persecution of Christians, we read:

Reports also continued to be received about Christians, in

particular converts, being subjected to arbitrary arrest and

harassment.

The Secretary-General's report follows others by our own State Department and human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

While we expect the State Department to release its 2010 country human rights reports on March 25, these are a few highlights from the 2009 report on Iran.

Security forces were implicated in custodial deaths and the

killings of election protesters and committed other acts of

politically motivated violence, including torture, beatings,

and rape.

* * *

The government administered severe officially sanctioned

punishments, including death by stoning, amputation, and

flogging.

* * *

Authorities responded to all the demonstrations with raids

on opposition activists' offices.

* * *

Some prison facilities, including Evin Prison in Tehran,

were notorious for cruel and prolonged torture of political

opponents of the government. Authorities also maintained

``unofficial'' secret prisons and detention centers outside

the national prison system where abuse reportedly occurred.

The government reportedly used white torture--prolonged

solitary confinement with extreme sensory deprivation--

especially on political prisoners, often in detention centers

outside the control of prison authorities, including Section

209 of Evin Prison.

* * *

The government threatened, harassed, and arrested

individuals who posted comments critical of the government on

the Internet; in some cases it reportedly confiscated their

passports or arrested their family members.

Amnesty's 2010 report on human rights in Iran starts with the following summary:

An intensified clampdown on political protest preceded and,

particularly, followed the presidential election in June,

whose outcome was widely disputed, deepening the long-

standing patterns of repression. The security forces, notably

the paramilitary Basij, used excessive force against

demonstrators; dozens of people were killed or fatally

injured. The authorities suppressed freedom of expression to

an unprecedented level, blocking mobile and terrestrial phone

networks and Internet communications. Well over 5,000 people

had been detained by the end of the year. Many were tortured,

including some who were alleged to have been raped in

detention, or otherwise ill-treated. Some died from their

injuries. Dozens were then prosecuted in grossly unfair mass

`show trials.' Most were sentenced to prison terms but at

least six were sentenced to death.

* * *

The election-related violations occurred against a

background of severe repression, which persisted throughout

2009 and whose victims included members of ethnic and

religious minorities, students, human rights defenders and

advocates of political reform. Women continued to face severe

discrimination under the law and in practice, and women's

rights campaigners were harassed, arrested and imprisoned.

Torture and other ill-treatment of detainees remained rife

and at least 12 people died in custody. Detainees were

systematically denied access to lawyers, medical care and

their families, and many faced unfair trials.

In its 2011 World Report chapter on Iran, Human Rights Watch writes:

Iran's human rights crisis deepened as the government

sought to consolidate its power following 2009's disputed

presidential election. Public demonstrations waned after

security forces used live ammunition to suppress protesters

in late 2009, resulting in the death of at least seven

protesters and, I would add, we all remember Neda, who was

killed online. Authorities announced that security forces had

arrested more than 6,000 individuals after June 2009.

Hundreds--including lawyers, rights defenders, journalists,

civil society activists, and opposition leaders--remain in

detention without charge. Since the election crackdown last

year, well over a thousand people have fled Iran to seek

asylum in neighboring countries. Interrogators used torture

to extract confessions, on which the judiciary relied on to

sentence people to long prison terms and even death.

Restrictions on freedom of expression and association, as

well as religious and gender-based discrimination, continued

unabated.

The report continued:

Authorities systematically used torture to coerce

confessions. Student activist Abdullah Momeni wrote to

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei in September

describing the torture he suffered at the hands of jailers.

At this writing no high-level official has been prosecuted

for the torture, ill-treatment, and deaths of three detainees

held at Kahrizak detention center after June 2009.

We cannot allow these violations to go unnoticed. Nor can we continue to turn a blind eye to the countless prisoners of conscience fighting for basic human dignity in this brutal dictatorship.

It is time we take a stand for people like Nasrin Sotoudeh, detained for her work as a human rights lawyer, women's rights activist, and defender of children who face capital charges; Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, detained for his work as a blogger and human rights activist. He has been refused medical treatment for kidney failure; and Fariba Kamalabadi, Jamaloddin Khanjani, Afif Naeimi, Saied Rezaie, Behrouz Tavakkoli, Vahid Tizfahm, Mahvash Sabet--all detained for their leadership in the Baha'i community.

As of today, the precise whereabouts of opposition leaders Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi, and their respective wives Fatemeh Karroubi and Zahra Rahnavard, remain unknown following their arrest and detention in February. Meanwhile, according to international human rights organizations, the whereabouts of hundreds of Iranians, including journalists and political activists, arrested just before the February 14 opposition protests remain unknown.

To each of them, I echo President Reagan's words: ``I came here to give you strength, but it is you who have strengthened me.''

As we approach the Iranian New Year celebration of Nowruz, it is time for

the President to demonstrate this administration's commitment to the Iranian people's struggle for human rights.

We know that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iranian Presidential Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei and other senior Iranian government officials are directly responsible for and complicit in ordering, controlling, or otherwise directing the commission of serious human rights abuses against the people of Iran on or after June 12, 2009.

Pursuant to Executive Order 13553 and the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, the President should designate these individuals as human rights abusers and reaffirm our core American values: freedom, democracy and human rights.

I would just end by quoting from section 105 of the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, signed by the President into law last year. It requires that the executive branch produce a list of persons who are responsible or complicit in certain rights abuses. It says:

Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of

this Act, the President shall submit to the appropriate

congressional committees a list of persons who are officials

of the Government of Iran or persons acting on behalf of that

Government (including members of paramilitary organizations

such as Ansar-e-Hezbollah and Basij-e Mostaz'afin), that the

President determines, based on credible evidence, are

responsible for or complicit in, or responsible for ordering,

controlling, or otherwise directing, the commission of

serious human rights abuses against citizens of Iran or their

family members on or after June 12, 2009, regardless of

whether such abuses occurred in Iran.

Clearly this official about to arrive in the United States meets the standard under section 105 of CISADA, and the U.S. administration should designate him as an abuser of human rights. He should not be admitted entry into the United States.

We should call it the way we see it, which is, this is one of the most dangerous human rights-abusing officials that we know of. Comprehensive data now exists from Human Rights Watch, from Amnesty International, even from the United Nations on what this man has directed. He should not be given a visa, and he should be so listed under U.S. law.

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

Mr. President, We are borrowing over $5 billion per day.

That's $35 billion borrowed per week to run our government, totaling over $1.5 trillion in borrowed money just to run for a year.

Harvard's great economic historian, Niall Ferguson, noted that the decline of a country can be marked when it pays its moneylenders more than its army. His classic case comes from the French monarchy of the 1780s who failed to make interest payments on

their debt, causing the financial collapse that triggered the Revolution. Recently, Carmen Reinhard and Kenneth Rogoff wrote a brilliant book called ``This Time is Different, Eight Centuries of Financial Folly.'' Their vast study revealed that most government officials believe they are always unique and different, causing them to make the same mistakes that crippled past nations and empires.

Using Ferguson's tipping point, where are we today?

This year, the total cost of maintaining our army will equal $137 billion. This same year, we will pay $225 billion in interest to our money lenders for the use of $14 trillion borrowed from China, Japan and elsewhere. The startling conclusion is that we have already passed Ferguson's tipping point by paying America's money lenders more than our own Army.

It gets worse.

In just 6 years, the administration says that we will have to pay over $661 billion to our money lenders for interest on our rapidly expanding debt. With the expected cost of our Army at $195 billion, our Air Force at $201 billion and our Navy/Marines at $217 billion, the total cost of $613 billion to provide for our common defense will be smaller than the $661 billion due to the money lenders. In simple economic terms, we will be forced to pay our lenders their interest money first, before caring for our own safety, or risk seeing the value of the dollars in our own wallets disappear.

Remember, these numbers are optimistic. They assume no severe spike in interest costs and no other war.

Recently, the Senate agonized over a short-term, 2-week spending bill that made a $4 billion cut to spending. We should see that bill's cuts as modest knowing that we already pay $616 million daily in interest and over $4 billion per week. In sum, the cuts of the 2-week bill saved just 1 week of interest payments.

As dire as this situation is, there is a bright side. Our country has seen this movie before. Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt all accumulated economy-crushing debts as the fate of the United States hung in the balance. Our best example of what to do next comes from our own grandparents, rightly called the ``Greatest Generation.''

Tom Brokaw coined the title for Americans of the 1930s and 1940s who defeated the Depression, Japanese and Nazis simultaneously. I would add a fourth, largely unnoticed victory that Brokaw missed. After three great victories for freedom, our grandparents spent the next 20 years paying the debts incurred to win the contests of the Depression, Pacific and Europe. Their accumulated debts of 1946 totaled over 120 percent of our national income. Economists report that between economic growth and some inflation, the Greatest Generation reduced the crippling World War II debts that secured our victory during the late 1940s and 1950s. The return to more fiscally responsible government sparked an economic boom that built the super power called the United States of America.

The lesson of history is clear. Each generation of Americans faces conflict, war and debt. Each generation is tested. The looming debt crisis facing this government is our generation's test. While some government officials and bankers may still counsel ineffective action saying ``we owe this money to ourselves'' or ``because the dollar is the reserve currency, we can owe this amount,'' we know that the crisis we face is not that different from the ones that crippled other nations. With spending cuts and discipline we can master this danger, as our grandparents did. The need to do the hard things, like entitlement reform, is similar to the dramatic moves our grandparents made to secure our future.

But there is one difference between us and other nations. From the dawn of our revolution, the United States became the greatest force for human liberty and individual dignity ever known. The U.S. ended slavery, gave women the right to vote and spread freedom across Europe, Latin America and Asia. We are now challenged by 21st century world views in the Middle East and China that do not hold the western value of the individual as high as we do. It is therefore doubly important to do the work needed to reduce spending and balance the books so that we restore the vitality of a free people and their cause of expanding liberty and individual dignity.

Next time you talk to a member of the Greatest Generation, do not just say thank you. Ask them for advice on how to trim budgets and restore growth in the face of extraordinary debts, just as they did.

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

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

With the cold-blooded murder of four Americans by pirates, our country faces a dangerous enemy as old as the second Washington administration and the earliest days of the U.S. Navy.

This danger now stretches across our vital oil supply lanes and threatens not just Americans handing out Bibles at Indian Ocean ports of call but our vital supply of energy. I think it is time to recall the tough choices made by the Jefferson administration to suppress the 21st century's pirates in this new chapter.

We may forget that as much as 10 percent of all Federal revenues were paid by the Washington administration to the Barbary pirates operating in what became Libya. Payments continued under the Adams and Jefferson administrations, but as always with kidnappers and pirates, ransoms only led to more danger on the high seas.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson decided that payments of tribute to the Barbary States in exchange for the safe passage of American shipping vessels had gone far enough. Over the next 5 years, Jefferson sent the new U.S. Navy--ironically built over his objection--to attack and defeat the pirates. In the conflict that followed, new American heroes were made, especially Captain Stephen Decatur. Decatur's exploits were dangerous and involved close quarters in combat. In his honor, my State of Illinois named one of its major cities after him, placing his statue in the city's center.

In the end, piracy was defeated and the flag of the United States was not strongly challenged by pirates until this century.

In the wake of the murder of four Americans by Somali pirates, we need to recall Jefferson's policy under what I would call the ``Decatur Initiative'' against Indian Ocean pirates.

Since 2006, pirates attacked more and more vessels. There were over 400 attacks just last year. According to the New York Times, the modern-day pirates of the 21st century currently hold 50 vessels and more than 800 hostages. According to the International Maritime Bureau, pirates murdered 379 people with an additional 199 individuals reported missing between 1993 and 2009.

According to reports, the typical pirate ransom in 2005 was between $100,000 and $200,000. By 2008, the average ransom grew to between $500,000 ad $2 million. One year later, in 2009, the average ransom reportedly grew again to a range between $1.5 million and $3.5 million, In late 2010, ransoms now hover around $4 million per vessel. Ransom payments as large as $9.5 million for a tanker carrying crude oil have also been reported by the media.

Recently, pirates captured a supertanker worth $200 million carrying 2 million barrels of oil bound for the U.S. Its ransom may become the mother load for pirates to extend their reach across the Indian Ocean and into the Red Sea and Persian Gulf. We would be naive not to expect profits from piracy will not be used to support terrorism against the West.

The Horn of Africa is of crucial importance, not only to the U.S. economy, but also to the global market as it serves as a major artery of international shipping. The oil tankers that cruise these waters provide much of the world's energy supply and we cannot risk the safety of those shipments. This region is a potential incubator for the growth of two burgeoning al Qaida franchises: al Qaida in the Islamic Magreb, AQIM, and Somalia's al-Shabaab group, which has pledged its loyalty to Osama bin Laden.

Yesterday, I raised this issue with our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. She hinted that our policy may be changing and that is welcome news. I asked, ``if we can't be tough on pirates, who can we be tough on?''

Today, I am announcing the start of an effort here in the Senate to draft legislation and support administration action along the lines of Jefferson's policy on pirates.

These legislative concepts shall be collectively referred to as the ``Decatur Initiative,'' Decatur, whose most daring mission involved recapturing the U.S.S. Philadelphia from pirates.

The time has come for us to advance the following: 1. A defined ``Pirate Exclusion Zone'' that would allow the immediate boarding and/ or sinking of any vessel from Somalia not approved and certified for sea by allied forces; 2. an expedited legal regime permitting trial and detention of pirates captured on the high seas; 3. a blockade of pirate-dominated ports like Hobyo, Somalia; 4. broad powers and authority to on-scene commanders to attack or arrest pirates once outside Somalia's 12-mile territorial limit--this would include the summary sinking of pirate ships if a local commander deems it warranted.

Additionally, I will explore actions to attack the financial links between pirates and the terrorist groups such as al Shabaab and target pirates with financial sanctions in the same way as other terrorist networks.

In the wake of the recent tragedy in the Arabian Sea, where American missionaries were gunned down in cold blood, I am hopeful that many of my colleagues will be willing to join me in taking bold action against the pirates who have been operating in the waters off East Africa. It is ironic that the United States and our allies station substantial naval forces against pirates in this region but take little aggressive action against them. While the pirates have substantial strength on the ground in Somalia, once they're put to sea, we can be their masters and they have very weak means to oppose us. A set of vessels blockading pirate-dominated ports with aggressive orders to attack and sink any vessel leaving Somalia should make quick work of pirate operations.

The cost of oil and the price of gas is high enough. Further increases could endanger our slowly recovering economy. As part of the effort to stabilize the price of gas in America, we need to recover Jefferson's policy and attack and defeat Somali pirates as soon as they leave Somalia's territorial waters.

In addition, as this body begins to finalize spending legislation for the remainder of the year, I would like to highlight the growing danger to the U.S. economy and our country.

We all know that the national debt now tops $14 trillion but we should note that this means we are adding $35 billion to our debts each week or over $5 billion borrowed each day.

That $4 billion cut represents just .3 percent of this year's annual deficit or just three one-hundredths of 1 percent

of the current money we owe. The famous Harvard economic historian Niall Ferguson said you can mark the decline of a country when it pays more money to its lenders than to its army. We have already crossed that point. This year the Congressional Budget Office estimates that interest payments we will pay to our money lenders will top $225 billion. That is more than the cost of our Army, which we currently estimate costs about $195 billion, or our Air Force, which we estimate costs $201 billion, or even our Navy, which will cost $217 billion this year.

Our money lender costs now are higher than the entire gross domestic product of the country of Denmark, at $201 billion. We must pay $4 billion per week in interest or $616 million per day to our money lenders. What is worse, interest payments are expected to more than double over the next decade and will top $778 billion. That means soon we will have to pay our money lenders more than it costs to operate our Army, Navy, and Air Force combined at $623 billion.

Remember also that interest payments on the debt are a form of wealth transfer from hard-working middle-class Americans who pay Federal taxes to wealthy lenders, many of whom live abroad. For those in the Senate who are opposing budget constraints put in by the House, we should force them to admit that they are either for higher taxes for the American people or more borrowing that transfers wealth from hard- working middle-class Americans to high-income money lenders, most of whom now live abroad.

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

I withhold.

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

Madam President, I rise to support this continuing resolution. As we know, the Senate is set to pass a short-term funding bill, while negotiations continue on a longer term funding bill for the rest of the year.

The administration has presented us with a request also to fund the government next year and is expected to ask for an increase in the Federal debt ceiling. This legislation cuts about $4 billion. Up against our annual deficit or the total debt, it is but a microdrop in the budget.

The Federal Government is on track to spend about $3.7 trillion this fiscal

year, while taking in only $2.2 trillion in revenue. If we compared this to a middle-class example, it would be as if someone was spending $37,000 a year, with an income of only $22,000.

Replace ``thousand'' for ``trillion'' and you get a good idea of how fiscally irresponsible the Federal Government has become. We have a $14 trillion debt and, as we all know now, we are borrowing 40 cents of every $1 we spend. Clearly, there is a growing danger in the country from tremendous debt and runaway spending. It is this resolution that will help in a very small way to put us on a better track.

I encourage us to use a multipronged approach as we move forward. We need to reverse the current spending trend of the Congress. We need to address long-term obligations and put statutory backstops into place to make sure it will be very difficult for future Congresses to do what past Congresses have done.

As a very new member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I will be asking Federal agencies to identify further programs and ways to reduce Federal spending. The administration has been on the right track in several key areas. They have proposed to cut or terminate almost 150 discretionary programs that would save about $21 billion and defense programs that would save about $25 billion. But that savings should be put to reducing our total need to borrow and not bumped back into additional spending by the government.

Additionally, we need to incorporate what we just learned from the Government Accountability Office about inefficient and duplicative areas of the Federal budget. GAO's recommendations for consolidations and eliminating programs should be fully reviewed and, in many places, implemented for next year's budget.

Treasury Secretary Geithner will soon ask the Congress to increase the allowable Federal debt a fourth time for the last 2 years. In my judgment, Congress should say no unless such an increase is coupled with new and dramatic antispending reforms that would make any future additions to our debt nearly impossible.

While defaulting on U.S. bonds is not an option, Congress must tie future debt limit extensions to reforms that produce much smaller and smarter government. As Indiana's Governor Daniels has said: ``You will never know how much government you won't miss.''

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

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

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set aside the pending amendment and call up the Kirk-Pryor amendment No. 123.

That is correct.

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

Mr. President, the Kirk-Pryor amendment seeks to assist some of our greatest innovators by providing a fast lane within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for small businesses to receive information and assistance regarding their patent applications.

Small businesses are the economic engine of the American economy. According to the Small Business Administration, small businesses employ just over half of all private sector employees and create over 50 percent of our nonfarm GDP. Illinois alone is home to 258,000 small employers and more than 885,000 self-employers.

Small businesses are helping to lead the way on American innovation. These firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms, and their patents are twice as likely to be among the most cited among all patents. Small business breakthroughs led to the development of airplanes, FM radio, and the personal computer. Unfortunately, the share of small-entity patents is declining, according to a New York University researcher.

While S. 23 takes great strides in reforming our patent system, it can still be daunting for a small business owner or inventor to obtain a patent. In many instances, the value of a patent is what keeps that new small business afloat.

It is vital for America's future competitiveness, her economic growth, and her job creation that these innovators spend their time developing new products and processes that will build our future, not wading through government redtape. Our amendment would help small firms navigate the bureaucracy by establishing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Ombudsman Program to assist small businesses with their patent filing issues. The provision was first conceived as part of the Small Business Bill of Rights, which I introduced in the House, to expand employment and help small businesses grow. The Small Business Bill of Rights and this amendment are endorsed by the National Federation of Independent Business. I am proud to have this as part of a 10-point plan to be considered here in the Senate.

I wish to thank Senator Mark Pryor of Arkansas, who is the lead Democratic cosponsor of this amendment. He is a strong and consistent supporter of small business, and I appreciate his partnership on this important program. I also thank Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley and their staffs for working with us on this amendment and for preserving this critical legislation.

Our Founding Fathers recognized the importance of a strong patent system that protects and incentivizes innovators. I look forward to supporting S. 23, which will provide strong intellectual property rights to further our technological advancement.

In sum, we should help foster innovation by protecting innovators, especially small business men and women, and I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I rise to introduce a bipartisan resolution with my colleague Senator Durbin condemning the government of Iran for its state-sponsored persecution of the Baha'i minority.

Founded in Iran in 1844, the Baha'i faith now has more than 5 million adherents in 236 countries and territories. The Baha'is comprise the largest religious minority in Iran.

The Baha'is preach tolerance, diversity and equality. Yet since the Islamic Revolution of 1979, the Baha'is have faced brutal and unrelenting persecution in Iran. According to the U.S. State Department, more than 200 Baha'is have been killed since 1979.

The Baha'is are regularly denied employment, access to higher education, and face multiple forms of discrimination and harassment.

In August 2010, the Iranian government sentenced seven leaders of Iran's Baha'i community to 20-year prison terms on charges of ``spying for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, propaganda against the regime and spreading corruption on earth.'' Their lawyer has been denied all access to the Baha'i prisoners and their files. Last month, the Revolutionary Court in Tehran sentenced a Baha'i human rights activist, Navid Khanjani, to a 12-year prison term on charges that included ``propaganda against the regime by publishing news, reports, and interviews with foreign TV and radio.''

The United States and the international community need to act now.

The bipartisan resolution condemns the Iranian regime's continued persecution of its Baha'i minority, calls on the regime to release Baha'i political prisoners and urges President Obama and Secretary Clinton to designate Iranian officials and other individuals directly responsible for egregious human rights violations in Iran.

The plight of Baha'is in Iran should be deeply personal to all Americans. I call on the administration to elevate human rights in Iran, including the plight of Iranian Baha'is, to the top of the international agenda.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business.

Mr. President, we are spending money that we do not have. The administration's budget proposes taxing the American people to the tune of $2.6 trillion, spending $3.7 trillion, and borrowing $1.1 trillion. Under the budget, interest payments on the debt are set to quadruple from $200 billion this year to $900 billion in 10 years.

The great Harvard economic historian, Naill Ferguson, has stated that the decline of a country can be measured when it pays its money lenders more than its Army. We will hit that level in the next few fiscal years.

Now, in response today, I am announcing our first Silver Fleece Award. It is not a Golden Fleece Award because in this time of austerity, we can no longer afford that. We pay homage to Senator William Proxmire of Wisconsin that put forward the Golden Fleece Award in the late 1970s and 1980s.

Working with Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, we feature what is in his ``Wastebook'' on a new site called ``Wastebook on Facebook.'' There, the Silver Fleece Award is being proposed in three parts for a vote by people who wish to participate.

This month we had three nominees for the Silver Fleece Award. The second runner up was a pair of National Science Foundation grants worth $456,000. These grants went to studies on why political candidates make vague statements and how Americans use online dating. The first runner up was for $615,000 in a grant to create a library archive about the Grateful Dead, a well-known rock-and-roll band.

However, neither of these two projects were voted on as the worst of

the current waste we see. Instead, the inaugural winner of the Silver Fleece Award is for a nearly $1 million grant going to fund signs to display poetry in zoos. The organization administering the program, Poets House and Public Libraries, states that the goal of the program is to ``deepen public awareness of environmental issues through poetry.'' I would add, using borrowed taxpayer funds.

Thanks to this nearly $1 million program, a visitor to the Little Rock Zoo in Arkansas can now read the words of author Hans Christian Andersen saying:

Just as living is not enough, said the butterfly. One must

have sunshine, freedom and a little flower.

I would argue that future generations would be far more interested in a life without debt, and taxpayers should not pick up the bill for such projects.

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the 2008 Readers' Digest article, the Poets House and Public Libraries statement on the Language of Conservation, and the April 15, 2010, article from the Arkansas Democrat Gazette.

I would also like to now announce the new nominees for the next March Silver Fleece Award. First, we will have the opportunity to vote to give the Silver Fleece Award for a $150,000 transportation grant to create a ``wildlife crossing'' at Monkton, VT. This is a technical term for a tunnel that will allow salamanders and other animals to cross below a road.

Our second nominee is a $46,000 grant from the National Science Foundation to study why people lie in text messages.

Third, we will nominate funding for a videogame called WolfQuest which was funded by a $508,253 grant from the National Science Foundation to a Minnesota zoo. We invite your votes and your feedback on ``Wastebook on Facebook'' to decide what next month's silver fleece award winner will be.

The sad thing is, the only loser currently is the American people.

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

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Senator Whitehouse, Senator Boxer and a growing list of my colleagues in support of the Whitehouse-Kirk-Boxer amendment that will improve airline safety throughout the Nation.

Most individuals are familiar with laser pointers that are often used in presentations. What you may not know is the growing danger these devices pose to pilots.

Last month, the FAA released nationwide data on lasers pointed at aircraft. From 2009 to 2010, incidents nearly doubled from 1,527, to 2,836. To show how quickly this has become a problem, when the FAA first began to track this problem in 2005, incidents were under 300.

Transportation Secretary LaHood has acknowledged this is a serious safety issue. Lasers can temporarily blind pilots, which is incredibly dangerous, but even more so during the critical time of takeoff and landing. Advancements in laser technology also are making the problem worse. Certain color variations, such as green lasers, are 35 times brighter than comparable red lasers.

This is a particular worry for me and for my State's busiest airport--O'Hare. According to the FAA, last year O'Hare had the second- highest number of laser events in the Nation at 98.

The Whitehouse-Kirk-Boxer amendment creates new penalties for knowingly pointing a laser pointer at an aircraft, or at the flight path of an airplane. Commonsense exemptions are provided to allow further research and testing activities.

Current law has not kept up to date with this new threat. It is time we give law enforcement and prosecutors additional tools to reduce the likelihood of a tragedy.

The amendment is supported by the Air Line Pilots Association and the National Association of Police Organizations which includes the Federal Flight Deck Officers Association.

I thank Senator Whitehouse and his staff for their leadership on this issue, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan proposal to help make our Nation's pilots, and especially their passengers, safer.

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

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

Mr. President, as the junior Senator representing the State of Illinois, and one who will lead a celebration of President Reagan's life in Chicago Saturday night, for Sunday, the 100th birthday of our native Illinoisan, our 40th President, Ronald Reagan, I want to talk for a moment about his life and what he has meant to the United States, now on the 100th anniversary of President Reagan's birth.

On February 6, 1911, in Tampico, IL, with a population of 820, John and Nelle Reagan welcomed a child who would one day change the direction not just of our country but the world. According to the Reagan family lore, when he first gazed upon his son, John Reagan prophetically quipped: ``He looks like a fat little Dutchman. But who knows, he might grow up to be President someday.''

His father was a strong believer in the American dream and Nelle Reagan passed on to her son her penchant to always look for the good in people, regardless of their current position.

It was those early lessons in perseverance and faith that would inspire Ronald Reagan to pursue his dream of becoming a Hollywood actor. He signed his first professional acting contract in 1935 and went on to enjoy a successful career on the silver screen. But by 1946, after serving 3 years in the Army Air Force Intelligence Corps during the height of World War II, he began to have ambitions beyond Hollywood. A 5-year stint as the president of the Screen Actors Guild laid the foundation for Ronald Reagan's political career. During the turmoil of the Hollywood communism craze, Reagan proved himself to be a skilled dealmaker and an influential leader as he successfully navigated the upheaval in the Hollywood community.

In 1964, Ronald Reagan was thrust into the national spotlight as he gave his televised speech entitled, ``A Time for Choosing,'' in support of the Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater.

Following his speech, a group of influential citizens became convinced that Ronald Reagan should become the next Governor of California. After winning in the primary and enduring a very hard- fought campaign, Ronald Reagan unseated the two-time Governor of California, Pat Brown, to become the 33rd Governor in California's history.

During his 2 terms as Governor, Californians enjoyed a smaller, less costly, and more efficient State government. Governor Reagan returned $5 billion to the taxpayers and used his line-item veto authority 943 times to ensure that the State's budget matched its priorities.

Ronald Reagan had once again proved himself a determined and capable leader in difficult times, but soon the American people would learn that his best days were very much ahead of him. After an unsuccessful Republican Presidential attempt in 1976, he knew that he wanted to be President but would only enter the race if the people of the United States actually wanted him to run. In the years following the 1976 primary, Ronald Reagan became increasingly concerned about the direction the country was headed, especially in the areas of national security, unemployment, and the economy. More than anything, Reagan sensed that Americans had lost their sense of confidence, not just in themselves but also in the country.

Interestingly, the concerns Mr. Reagan felt as he weighed the decision to run for President are not unlike many of the challenges we face today.

Ronald Reagan was confident that he was the man who could lead the country out of a dark recession and into the light of a new prosperity and national pride. After winning a landslide election in November, Ronald Reagan was sworn in as our 40th President on January 20, 1981. He immediately went to work on repairing a broken economy by enacting the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, with his solid belief being that if people had more money in their pockets and confidence to invest, the country would get back on a sound financial footing. During his first months in office, Reagan was as much to thank for the new found economic stability as he was for a heightened sense of optimism that was returning to the United States after very hard times.

He thoughtfully guided the country through a series of national tragedies and terrorist attacks on our military forces abroad. Yet through it all, President Reagan's resolve never wavered, his confidence that the American people would meet the myriad challenges they faced never faltered. This was a man who, after surviving an assassination attempt, continued to meet with congressional leaders in his hospital room as he recovered because he believed it in the best interest of the American people that he continue working to the extent his body would allow. It was that type of steadfast determination that allowed the negotiations with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev to move forward and eventually led to the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, the signing of the I.N.F. Treaty and eventually the end of Soviet oppression in Eastern Europe. The issue that got him into politics, ending the spread of communism, became the crowning achievement of his Presidency.

His constant refrain throughout his time in the White House was that government was becoming too big, too inefficient, too unresponsive and too wasteful. As Governor, Reagan demonstrated the ability to exercise fiscal restraint and he urged leaders in Congress to do the same thing. I think it appropriate that we are celebrating Reagan's 100th birthday at a time when national debt and the deficit are at an all-time high. While we know that Reagan possessed the willingness to tackle such issues, I believe the lesson we can learn most from his Presidency is the endlessly optimistic attitude he had that the United States and its people would meet challenges of the day and emerge stronger because of the struggle to overcome.

His assertion that America was ``the shining city on a hill'' guided him, as it should us. A hard-nosed, gritty politician, Reagan would have jumped at the chance to take on the responsibility of leading this country out of this recession, just as he did in 1981. So as we celebrate Ronald Reagan's 100th birthday, let us take a moment to reflect upon the life of a man who, as President, always did what was necessary to move the country forward in the way he felt was most beneficial to those who mattered most, the people.

I know his legacy is most associated with the people of California, but as the junior Senator for Illinois, we will claim our right to note his birth in Tampico, his childhood in Dixon, and his college years at Eureka College. We will be very happy to mark the 100th birthday on Saturday in Chicagoland and through celebrations in other parts of the State, one of our great Presidents who very much changed the course and direction of this country and this world for the better.

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

Madam President, I wish to talk about two topics today, first on this health care bill and then on the situation in Egypt.

I rise today in support of the amendment to repeal the health care law. We made a mistake last year in passing this law, and a large majority of American people know it. In the face of the largest debt in our history, it was the height of folly to create a new spending program, offering subsidized health care to 30 million Americans. It is a promise we cannot afford to keep and one that our lenders may force us to retract.

Before losing our credit rating or suffering the humiliation of foreign lenders denying us new loans, we should take the decisive action now to end this entitlement. Congress should replace this mistaken law with bipartisan reforms that prohibit the government from overriding the decisions you make with your doctor, that defend your right to buy insurance from any State in the Union, and to make lawsuit reforms to lower the costs of defensive medicine.

The failed health care law now ruled as unconstitutional by two Federal courts uses the commerce clause of the Constitution to create an unlimited government that could require Americans to buy what they do not want. The very heart of the Constitution was the creation of a limited government that could only accomplish its defined missions, leaving all else to the people and to the States.

These courts are right, the law is unconstitutional. It spends over $2.6 trillion, it hurts small businesses, it cuts senior health care under Medicare, and levies billions in new taxes against our economy in the teeth of the great recession.

Recently, I visited Decatur Memorial Hospital in Decatur, IL. Their president, Ken Smithmier, warned me that the Medicare cuts required by the new health care law would cut $10 million annually from their hospital, resulting in the loss of over 200 jobs. Decatur is not alone in its troubles. In nearly half of my State's counties, hospitals are among the top three employers. They are the backbone of our local economies, and their employment would be greatly harmed by this health care law.

We made a promise to seniors who depend on Medicare that we would take care of them. This law cuts Medicare and hurts them. We should honor, instead, our promises to defend the Nation, to support seniors on Social Security and who depend on Medicare before making an extravagant promise that is irresponsible and cannot be kept under the health care law.

Egypt

Madam President, I also wish to take this time to speak on an entirely different subject, which is what is going on in Egypt.

I entitle this discussion ``The Muslim Brotherhood: Its Leaders in Their Own Words.''

Will Egypt follow Poland or Georgia to foster a new democratic government or will it follow Iran's revolution, converting Egypt into a state sponsor of terror?

While U.S. policy should support human rights and democracy, we face the risk that the Muslim Brotherhood, the al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, could seize power. Who is part of the brotherhood and what are its political objectives?

A detailed study shows why these questions should command the attention of the Congress and the President. With so much at stake in the Middle East, Americans must be clear-eyed about the Muslim Brotherhood and its radical Islamic agenda with a pledge of jihad against the West and the State of Israel.

The Muslim Brotherhood is the largest Islamist movement in the Middle East and is widely described as the most organized political force in Egypt. Its membership is estimated at over 600,000.

Although it claims to be nonviolent, this conservative organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, has profoundly influenced Islamic terrorist organizations such as al-Qaida, Islamic Jihad, and Hamas. One of its disciples was the prominent Islamist theologian Sayyid Qutb who provided the intellectual underpinnings of al-Qaida. Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaida's second in command, was once a member of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood.

As recently as 2004, the organization's motto was as follows:

Allah is our objective.

The Prophet is our leader.

Qur'an is our law.

Jihad is our way.

Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.

The Muslim Brotherhood was founded in 1928 by Hassan al-Banna. Banna is famously quoted as saying that ``it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law in all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.''

The Muslim Brotherhood has a violent history. Back in 1946, the U.S. Army issued an intelligence report stating that the Muslim Brotherhood ``maintains commando units and secret caches of arms.''

Throughout the 1940s, the paramilitary branch of the movement carried out targeted bombings and assassinations. In 1948, the Muslim Brotherhood was implicated in the murder of Egyptian Prime Minister Mahmoud Naqrashi. In 1954, the group allegedly tried to assassinate then-Prime Minister Gamal Abdel Nasser. The government banned the brotherhood as a political party that very same year.

The Muslim Brotherhood went underground only to resurface during the 1980s. It claimed to disavow violence and attempted to win political power as a religious and social organization. It was increasingly successful with allied candidates, winning 17 seats in the Parliament in 2000 and then a stunning 88 seats, or 20 percent of Egypt's Parliament, in 2005.

The Muslim Brotherhood is not a monolithic organization, but it does maintain a leadership structure and a core set of beliefs. Its leader is called the general guide. He has several deputy guides. Below them is a guidance council, comprised of 15 to 16 senior leaders as well as a broader body, the Shura, comprised of roughly 100 members.

Mohammed Badi was elected as the eighth general guide of the Muslim Brotherhood in January of 2010. As noted by the U.S. Government's Open Source Center, Badi is ``influenced by the writings of famous Muslim Brotherhood idealogue Sayyid Qutb, and is known for his conservative views.''

In an April interview in 2010, Mr. Badi said:

We will continue to raise the banner of Jihad and the Koran

in our confrontation with the enemy of Islam. The Muslim

Brotherhood still considers the Zionists to be its main and

only enemy. The Jews who occupy Palestine have their eyes set

on Egypt.

Two days ago, a leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Muhammed Ghannem, reportedly told Al-Alam Iranian news network that he ``would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for a war against Israel,'' adding that the world should understand ``the Egyptian people are prepared for anything to get rid of this regime.'' He went on to say that the Suez Canal should be ``closed immediately'' and that the flow of gas from Egypt to Israel should cease ``in order to bring about the downfall of the Mubarak regime.''

In 2007, the Muslim Brotherhood released a political platform which contained a number of indications on how this organization would govern Egypt if it came to power. According to the Congressional Research Service, the platform called for ``the establishment of a board of religious scholars with whom the President and the legislature would have to consult before passing laws.''

As noted by Mohamed Elmenshawy--the editor-in-chief of Taqrir Washington and Arab Insight:

Reminiscent of Iran's Guardian Council, this

undemocratically selected body could have the power vested by

the state to veto

any and all legislation passed by the Egyptian parliament and

approved by the president that is not compatible with Islamic

Shari'a law.

The same document raises the important question of the Muslim Brotherhood's commitment to a pluralistic society. Despite pledges to treat minorities and women as equals, the platform allows neither to hold high public office. As stated in the platform: ``Nonmuslims are excused from holding this mission.'' For women, the post of President or Prime Minister would ``contradict her nature, social and other humanitarian roles.'' The draft also cautions against ``burdening women with the duties against their nature or role in the family.''

The people of Egypt and apparently its army are mandating the fall of the Mubarak regime. While we support human rights and democracy, we must heed the growing warnings about the Muslim Brotherhood, their leaders, and plans for taking Egypt all the way back to the 13th century. We, as Americans, have seen this movie before--in Iran, in Lebanon, and in Gaza.

To prevent a strategic reversal on the scale of what happened in Iran, the United States and her allies should do all they can to support Egypt's armies and secular leaders, ensuring no future for the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt, locked under Shari'a law and oppressing women, Christians, and Jews, would be a catastrophic setback for progress in the Middle East. Such a state could renounce the Camp David peace accords or even start yet another war with Israel.

Decisive action and influence now will benefit the national security and economy of the United States later. The defeat of the Muslim Brotherhood and victory for Egyptian secular nationalists would be the best way to avoid war and restore economic confidence in the Middle East and the wider world.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping in America's largest supply of fresh water, the Great Lakes. More than thirty million Americans depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, food, jobs, and recreation. We need to put a stop to the poisoning of our water supply. Cities along the Great Lakes must become environmental stewards of our country's most precious freshwater ecosystem.

The Great Lakes Water Protection Act gives cities until 2031 to build the full infrastructure needed to prevent sewage dumping into the Great Lakes. Those who violate EPA sewage dumping regulations after that federal deadline will be subject to fines up to $100,000 for each day a violation occurs. These fines will be directed to a newly established Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Penalties collected would go into this fund and be reallocated to the states surrounding the Great Lakes. From there, the funds will be spent on wastewater treatment options, with a special focus on greener solutions such as habitat protection and wetland restoration.

This legislation is sorely needed. Many major cities along the Great Lakes do not have the infrastructure needed to divert sewage overflows during times of heavy rainfall. More than twenty-four billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Lakes each year; Detroit alone dumps an estimated 13 billion gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes annually. EPA estimates show there is a total of 347 combined sewer outflows that discharge into the Lake Michigan basin alone. This development is echoed throughout the Great Lakes region and is one we need to reverse.

These disastrous practices result in thousands of annual beach closing for the region's 815 freshwater beaches. Illinois faced 628 beach closures or contamination advisories in 2009 alone, up 17 percent from 2008. This greatly affects the health of our children and families--a recent University of Chicago study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue every year.

Protecting our Great Lakes is one of my top priorities in the Congress. As an original sponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Act, I favor a broad approach to addressing needs in the region. However, we must also move forward with tailored approaches to fix specific problems as we continue to push for more comprehensive reform. I am proud to introduce this important legislation that addresses a key problem facing our Great Lakes, and hope my colleagues will support me in ensuring that these important resources become free from the threat of sewage pollution.

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

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce the Great Lakes Water Protection Act. This bipartisan legislation would set a date certain to end sewage dumping in America's largest supply of fresh water, the Great Lakes. More than thirty million Americans depend on the Great Lakes for their drinking water, food, jobs, and recreation. We need to put a stop to the poisoning of our water supply. Cities along the Great Lakes must become environmental stewards of our country's most precious freshwater ecosystem.

The Great Lakes Water Protection Act gives cities until 2031 to build the full infrastructure needed to prevent sewage dumping into the Great Lakes. Those who violate EPA sewage dumping regulations after that federal deadline will be subject to fines up to $100,000 for each day a violation occurs. These fines will be directed to a newly established Great Lakes Clean-Up Fund within the Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Penalties collected would go into this fund and be reallocated to the states surrounding the Great Lakes. From there, the funds will be spent on wastewater treatment options, with a special focus on greener solutions such as habitat protection and wetland restoration.

This legislation is sorely needed. Many major cities along the Great Lakes do not have the infrastructure needed to divert sewage overflows during times of heavy rainfall. More than twenty-four billion gallons of sewage are dumped into the Lakes each year; Detroit alone dumps an estimated 13 billion gallons of sewage into the Great Lakes annually. EPA estimates show there is a total of 347 combined sewer outflows that discharge into the Lake Michigan basin alone. This development is echoed throughout the Great Lakes region and is one we need to reverse.

These disastrous practices result in thousands of annual beach closing for the region's 815 freshwater beaches. Illinois faced 628 beach closures or contamination advisories in 2009 alone, up 17 percent from 2008. This greatly affects the health of our children and families--a recent University of Chicago study showed swim bans at Chicago's beaches due to E. coli levels cost the local economy $2.4 million in lost revenue every year.

Protecting our Great Lakes is one of my top priorities in the Congress. As an original sponsor of the Great Lakes Restoration Act, I favor a broad approach to addressing needs in the region. However, we must also move forward with tailored approaches to fix specific problems as we continue to push for more comprehensive reform. I am proud to introduce this important legislation that addresses a key problem facing our Great Lakes, and hope my colleagues will support me in ensuring that these important resources become free from the threat of sewage pollution.

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

Madam President, I rise to oppose the START treaty because it recognizes limits on U.S. missile defenses in return for marginal reductions in the Russian arsenal. At the moment when the U.S. and allies must build missile defenses to protect against Iran, this treaty generates Russian pressure for America to go slow or risk Russia's departure from the agreement.

If you take the President's Senate missile defense letter at face value, then America would deploy defenses that will trigger a Russian treaty exit. I am concerned that to prevent a Russian treaty withdrawal, the United States will move slower on building defenses against Iran just when we need to move faster.

The most important duty of the Federal Government is to defend Americans against foreign attack, and the most important mission under that duty is to protect American families from the most dangerous nations that could carry out such an attack.

In the mid-20th century, we agreed that the Soviet Union represented a clear and present danger to America. Our Cold War Presidents--Truman through Clinton, Republicans and Democrats--backed policies of a strong defense, with alliances with our friends and diplomacy with the Soviets. But much has changed since the 20th century ended over a decade ago. While the Russians still have an impressive arsenal, they are shadows of their former shadow, dropping from 290 million people to 140 million people and from a gross domestic product of $2.6 trillion in 1990 to $2.1 trillion in 2010. The nuclear national security threat for the new 21st century moved beyond Russia to include Iran and North Korea, soon to be armed with nuclear weapons and missiles to deliver them.

While the Russians are heavily armed, they present a relatively stable face to the outside world. They have the capability to attack, but they currently lack the intent. On any given year, their leaders appear adverse to risk and unready to commit national suicide. The same cannot be said for Iran, North Korea, and other nations that present a far less rational face to the international community. Looking at such potentially irresponsible leaders, it is incumbent on us to go beyond idealistic diplomacy and mount a defense against an attack which may be leveled against our people or our allies. The lives of millions and the cause of freedom depend on our assessment of this threat and how we respond.

Recall that nuclear technology represents the science of the 1930s, missile technology from the 1960s. Since the laws of physics cannot be classified, countries bad and good will all one day have the means to develop powerful arsenals based on the last century's science. It is the sacred mission of the democracies to understand this change, to measure its danger, and to eliminate an attack should one of these smaller, less rational countries attack.

In such an environment, an agreement to limit the nuclear arms of the United States and Russia is helpful but does not concern the new danger emerging against the people of the West. If we can lower nuclear arms to levels where we still maintain a devastating counterpunch against a rational opponent who is uninterested in national suicide, then a nuclear war with that country remains unlikely and the cost of our armaments is reduced. If that agreement also causes us not to build defenses against an irrational opponent who may attack anyway, then we have committed a grievous national error.

I initially favored the goals of the START treaty. The treaty is an echo from the 20th century and had a marginal utility in improving the defense of the United States. Unfortunately, the negotiations to produce this treaty took a turn that was not well perceived by the press or public. The Russians used these negotiations intended to improve the defense of the United States as a means to preserve their ability to attack.

Surprisingly, American negotiators formalized a link in the protocol between limiting defenses against missile attack and maintaining forces to carry out such a strike. Perversely, this agreement now stands for two principles: No. 1, the United States and Russia should reduce their nuclear arms, on which we all agree, and No. 2, the United States should recognize policies to maintain the viability of a Russian attack. This second principle turns the purpose of the treaty on its head. It weakens the future defense of our Nation. The treaty would support a policy that we must not improve our defenses to such a degree as to defeat a Russian attack.

Much of this has had little impact on actual defense plans regarding Russia. Russia presents a relatively stable, status quo face to the international community. It also maintains a nuclear force which would quickly overwhelm any planned system of defense. But a policy of limiting missile defense has a tremendous impact on our ability to thwart an attack from less responsible powers, such as Iran or North Korea. Given the actions of Iranian and North Korean leaders, I would argue these countries represent the more important danger to the future of the United States and our allies in this new century.

In the 20th century, the argument about the defense of the Nation against an attack by missiles took on a divided and partisan tone. President Reagan proposed ``missile defense,'' while congressional Democrats opposed ``Star Wars.''

Much of the disagreement ended in the late 1980s and 1990s when Iraq attacked Iran and then Israel with missiles.

Over time, careful observers noted that missile defense was important not just to the health of Israel but to its survival.

When Russia attacked Georgia, it used a great number of missiles to deliver blows against that little country. As this century winds on, more countries will see these realities of the 21st century, eventually including the United States.

The administration's unsteady missile defense plans also concern me. I am concerned about the missile defense actions taken by the current administration. When it took office, it cancelled plans to enhance the missile defenses of the United States itself that were based in Alaska and California. To the great embarrassment of our allies in the Czech Republic and Poland, it cancelled plans to deploy radars and two-stage ground-based interceptors (GBIs). I would note that history has been unkind to Western leaders that abandon Poland.

The administration also began an effort to cancel funding for the ``Arrow III'' interceptor being jointly developed with Israel. Thanks to the late Chairman of the House Defense Appropriations Committee, Jack Murtha, the effort to kill Arrow III was reversed and

full-funding came to the Arrow III program despite the President's early wishes.

Once the negative reaction of our hurt Polish allies was known, the administration responded with a four-part plan to calm Europe using systems inferior to the GBI anti-missiles originally proposed by the last administration and current Secretary of defense. The inartfully coined European ``Phased-Adaptive'' approach involved anti-aircraft systems patched together in a rather ad hoc fashion. We now plan to begin by sailing U.S. Navy Aegis cruisers near European coasts followed by a decade and the possible deployment of a to-be-built Navy missile interceptor that does not yet exist, called the ``Standard Missile 3, block IIA''.

I contacted our Missile Defense Agency and asked if the originally planned GBIs for Poland could have stopped an attack by Iran against the United States. They answered yes.

We checked if any one of the new ``Phased-Adaptive'' stages could stop a similar intercontinental attack by Iran against the U.S. They answered Phase I could not, Phase II could not, and Phase III could not.

In fact the only phase that could engage a missile launched by Iran against the U.S. was not until Phase IV by the IIB missile that did not yet exist that would be deployed far later than the original GBIs proposed.

The problem goes deeper. I asked the MDA to compare the capabilities of the originally proposed two-stage GBIs to hit an Iranian missile against the future final Phase IV SM-3 JIB. The MDA replied with this graph. It shows that the original, longer range GBIs would have a full 4-minute window to hit and destroy an incoming Iranian missile bound for New York City. The SM-3 IIB, which has a shorter range, would have only 3 minutes. In short, the administration's new proposed missile has 25 percent less time to defeat an incoming Iranian attack than the originally proposed missile. No wonder our Polish allies supported the original plan.

I worry that some of these changes were made to curry favor with the Russians. I am concerned that the preamble to the START treaty would be used to reduce or block the efforts of the Congress to upgrade the defenses of the United States. In short, I am worried that while this treaty reduces the smaller threat of attack by Russia, it creates a Russian block for plans to eliminate the larger threat from Iran. The Russians clearly stated that if we mount defenses that could defeat their attack, they would pull out of the treaty. The problem is that to eliminate the threat from Iran and North Korea, we will have to do so. In this case, what is the value of the treaty? It clearly helps the Russians but if it blocks or delays our effort to protect against Iran, does it help us? I am also concerned with other aspects of this treaty, like an end to full-time compliance monitoring inside Russia.

There are also details of the treaty itself that concern me. Under previous treaties, the United States had a full-time monitoring presence in Votkinsk. This was eliminated. We will no longer have full- time monitors in Russia.

Also, an end to telemetry from new Russian missiles. Under previous treaties, the United States and Russia shared all the information transmitted by their test missiles in flight, called telemetry. While our spy satellites, planes and ships can gather some of this information, there is nothing like getting it straight from the missile's mouth. Telemetry is key to understanding the capability of a new missile, especially its maneuvers to drop off one or more nuclear warheads.

Under this new treaty, this data was lost. The Russians will not provide telemetry from their new missiles under this treaty. Their only obligation is to share telemetry from five missile flights a year and they will likely pick old missiles to do this.

We are told we lost the capability to collect the telemetry of new Russian missiles because while the Russians are developing many new models, we are not. Given that telemetry would report mainly on new Russian developments and not American, our negotiators gave up.

They should not have given up. The collection of telemetry from new Russian missiles had long been enshrined in arms control treaties. This precedent was well established and should have been continued.

There are inspections, but only 18 per year. We are told that the new treaty will offer the unprecedented inspection of actual missile warheads. This is true. Under the old treaties, we simply counted the number of missiles the Russians had using our spy satellites and assumed each missile was packed with as many warheads as the missile's flight tests and telemetry showed.

Now we will get to inspect actual missiles--but only 18 per year. The Russians have hundreds. At the rate the treaty allows, the full inspection of the Russian arsenal of 800 launchers would take over 40 years.

I asked administration officials how many hours notice the Russians would have before Americans conducted an actual warhead inspection. In all cases, they would have 24 hours or more notice that the Americans were coming. After extensive briefings on Russian cheating against previous arms control treaties--most flagrantly the treaty banning biological weapons--it should give you pause that the United States gave up collecting telemetry on the flight of every Russian missile in return for the inspection of 10 missiles per year and that only after a full day's notice.

We are also told that this treaty is needed to improve Russian international behavior. In my view, a treaty should only be signed to reward good behavior, not to encourage it later.

I was most inclined to support the intent of this treaty to improve relations between the United States and Russia on the subject of collapsing the Iranian regime and its nuclear weapons program. Undoubtedly, the administration earned good marks in getting the Russians to cancel the delivery of one key piece of air defense equipment--an anti-aircraft missile battery called the S-300--to Iran. This was an unqualified success.

Unfortunately, there are many more failures where the press paid little note. We believe the Russians are still delivering other pieces of air defense equipment to the Iranians. That is why the Russians insisted on exempting such deliveries from the new U.N. sanctions against Iran. Russian equipment will likely be used to defend Iran's nuclear sites, the very programs we are most worried about that violate Iran's commitment to the U.N. Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

What is most surprising is the actions of the Russians since the negotiation of this treaty. They know we, the Europeans and Israelis are most worried about the nuclear program of Iran. Despite these well- publicized concerns and numerous U.N. resolutions against the Iranian nuclear program, the Russians chose this year and this country to provide nuclear fuel to the Iranian reactor at Bushehr. As that Russian reactor begins operation, plutonium production will begin inside Iran. While the Russians promise that the Iranians will not be able to use this plutonium in Iranian bombs, can we be assured that these promises will be honored? Would not it have been better to never begin plutonium production in Iran at all?

I am also concerned about new ideas coming from the administration on missile defense and the Russians. Long ago, President Clinton proposed U.S-Russian cooperation in space. That cooperation led to a dependence so that soon, the U.S. will lack any way to launch astronauts. We cannot send our own astronauts to our own space station without the permission of the Russians.

In discussions regarding this treaty, I learned that the administration is now planning to bring the Russians inside the missile defenses of NATO. Russia is the very nation that used missiles to attack Georgia--a country applying for membership in NATO. I am sure the Georgians would be uncomfortable at best seeing Russians manage the missile defense of their little nation.

The U.S. offer to bring the Russians into NATO's missile defenses was embodied in an offer at the recent NATO conference in Lisbon. Nearly all Americans are fully aware of Russian spying against the United States military for the last 70 years. We know that Russia has one of the most active cyber-attack networks on the planet operating against U.S. networks. It would seem that a proposal to bring the Russians into the missile defense system of

NATO would introduce powerful new opportunities for espionage against us, as well as a greater understanding of our defense capabilities and weaknesses.

Imagine a Russian officer in a NATO missile defense center. He will soon learn when our system is alerted, how it processes information, what our response times are and the estimated accuracy of our interceptors. These are the things he would learn during his first week inside our operations center. We can only imagine what else he would learn over the coming years.

Remember that the warning information from NATO is critical to the defense of the United States. If the Russians managed to spoof or block critical NATO missile warning data, then U.S. commanders defending our homeland would become weaker, not stronger due to Russian presence in NATO missile defense centers.

Recall that missile combat is the ultimate ``come as you are'' affair. In a struggle between continents, the battle will be joined within 30 minutes. When submarine or medium-range missiles are employed, battle can start in as little as 10 minutes. If we have Russians in the system who found American weaknesses or deployed problems, U.S. commanders will have only minutes to diagnose and fix those problems before the gravest consequences befall our people and allies.

The next Congress will favor missile defense programs to a far greater degree than this one. I plan to encourage this body and especially the House with legislation to deny funding for any effort to bring Russians into the missile defenses of NATO or the United States.

I respect the opinions of Senators on both sides of this question. It is my judgment that safety of the American people is better off if we work to eliminate the new dangers of the 21st century rather than focus on the old agreements of the 20th century. In my view, the growing dangers of Iran and North Korea threaten the American people most. Therefore, the missile defense programs of the United States and our allies take precedence over an agreement whose protocol limits our defenses by acknowledging the need to preserve the ability of Russia to attack the United States.

While most of us were born in the 20th century and we loved black and white TV, the ``Ed Sullivan Show'' and the ``Honeymooners,'' we recognize that time has passed and we must adapt to the new world of the Internet, Ipad and Ichat. The 20th century doctrine of nuclear Mutually Assured Destruction against the Soviet Union is part of our past and not part of a future involving Taepo Dong II missiles from North Korea and Shahab III missiles from Iran.

I would urge the administration to devote the time and attention of our able diplomats to ending the Iranian nuclear program rather than this agreement that, while laudable in its very modest goals, went awry at the negotiating table.

Mr. President, I yield the floor.