Floor Statements

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013, which I am proud to have introduced with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) this morning. There are an estimated 33,000 gangs with 1.4 million active members who live in our neighborhoods, towns and cities across the United States. With more than 100,000 gang members, the city of Chicago has more gang members who terrorize its residents than any other city in the United States. The Chicago Crime Commission also reported the existence of an additional 15,000 gang members operating in our suburbs.

Gangs like the Vice Lords, Gangster Disciples and the Latin Kings are responsible for nearly 80 percent of the city's homicides, which just last summer amounted to 500 deaths in Chicago. These homicides are most often perpetrated with illegal weapons. Law enforcement officers in Chicago confiscate an average of 13,000 illegal weapons each year. It must end.

That is why I have joined with Senator Gillibrand of New York to take serious action to prevent weapons trafficking and straw purchasing, where a third-party member legally purchases a firearm, then sells or trades it to a criminal who is legally barred from purchasing such a weapon. Our bill would be the first Federal law to criminalize the trafficking of illegal guns. This legislation also calls upon the sentencing commission to substantially increase the penalties for trafficking when committed by or in concert with gang members.

The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act keeps Americans safe by giving law enforcement the tools it needs to crack down on straw purchases, organizers of trafficking rings, and those involved in the conspiracy of trafficking while protecting the constitutional rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners. I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting and quickly passing this critical legislation.

Mr. President, we often hear and read about stories of young boys and girls in foreign countries forced into sexual slavery. Helpless children as young as 11 and 12 years old are threatened, abused, raped, and sold for sex. But we rarely hear about the child sex trafficking that happens here at home in Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Miami, and most major metropolitan cities in the United States. Experts estimate that each year as many as 300,000 children are at risk of commercial sexual exploitation in the U.S. An alarming 40 percent of incidents investigated by federally funded task forces on human trafficking between 2008 and 2010 involved the sexual exploitation of a child, according to a Bureau of Justice Statistics report.

The numbers are rising, in part because it has become frighteningly simple to order a child prostitute on the Internet. One merely needs to look at the classified ads on Backpage.com, the leading Web site for prostitution advertising in the United States according to the Advanced Interactive Media, AIM, Group. The website's ``adult entertainment'' section generates more than 80 percent of total prostitution advertising revenue on the web. This section includes services such as ``escorts'' and ``body rubs,'' a thinly veiled code for prostitution. Just a few clicks on this site easily enables ``johns'' to purchase children for sex. Law enforcement believes that the existence of Backpage encourages the recruitment of victims for sexual exploitation because it allows traffickers to operate out of sight from police patrols.

Backpage.com is owned and operated by Village Voice Media Holdings, the former parent company of the alternative weekly Village Voice publications. The company, which makes an estimated $26 million per year from these ads, claims it polices the ads on its site, but the statistics and devastating reports say otherwise. According to the National Association of Attorneys General, 23 States have cumulatively filed more than 50 charges against suspects trafficking minors on Backpage.com.

In August 2011, nine members of the Vice Lords and other south and west side of Chicago gangs were charged with operating a major sex trafficking ring. Some of the girls forced into sexual slavery were as young as 12 years old. Victims suffered immense abuse, including beatings, branding, tattooing, death threats, being locked in car trunk, and forced to sleep outside even in cold Chicago winters. The gang members used Backpage.com to facilitate their operation.

In August 2012, Marques Williams was arrested and charged with a Federal sex trafficking complaint for trafficking a 15-year-old girl in Rochester, NY. Advertising the young girls services on Backpage.com, Williams forced her to take up to 15 customers a day.

In December 2012, Fernando Gonzales was sentenced to 20 years in prison for child sex trafficking. Fernando raped and impregnated a 16- year-old girl, then forced her into prostitution and advertised her services on Backpage.com. When the victim tried to escape, Fernando threatened to kill her and her child and then carved his initial into her arm.

Unfortunately, there are too many stories like these. As news reports of

pimps and traffickers using Backpage.com to advertise sexual services by minors continue to increase, we cannot leave our children defenseless. The profit-first mentality at Village Voice Media, which prioritizes the rights of pimps, not children, must end.

Fifty-one attorneys general, 36 clergymen, dozens of anti-trafficking organizations, columnists and editorial boards across the country, and 240,000 individuals through change.org have called on Village Voice Media to shutdown the ``adult entertainment'' section on Backpage.com. Even John Buffalo Mailer, son of Village Voice's co-founder, publicly urged Backpage.com to eliminate the section.

Over the past year, I joined with several of my colleagues in a bipartisan fashion to work to prevent children from being exploited and trafficked on Backpage.com. In March 2012, 18 Senators joined me in a letter to the Chairman and CEO of Village Voice Media Holdings, demanding the elimination of the adult entertainment section on the classified advertising Web site. I then led an effort to bring to the attention of those advertising on Village Voice publications the kinds of activities supported by the company. As a result, eight companies and organizations responded to our letter announcing the end of their advertising relationship with the publications. This had a clear effect, as a number of then-executives at Village Voice Media Holdings spun off the weekly publications as a new company in an apparent effort to circumvent the public relations disaster Backpage.com rightly caused Village Voice Media. But children continue to be bought and sold on Backpage.com.

Senator Blumenthal and I introduced S. Res. 439 as part of this effort to curb online child sexual exploitation. The legislation calls on Village Voice Media Holdings to eliminate the ``adult entertainment'' section of Backpage.com. By passing S. Res. 439, the U.S. Senate will present a united front in the fight against online child sex trafficking. We will be making it clear that the American public strongly condemns the facilitation and perpetuation of human trafficking by website operators. I want to especially thank Senators Blumenthal, Rubio, and Cornyn for their great partnership and leadership on this effort, hope the rest of our colleagues will join us and pass S. Res. 439.

Mr. President, I offer my strong support for Thomas Durkin to fill one of the four vacancies on the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Illinois.

Because of his outstanding experience and record of public service, I submitted Thomas Durkin's candidacy to the White House in July 2011, following the recommendation of my nonpartisan Judicial Review Commission. Senator Durbin had previously forwarded Mr. Durkin's name to President Obama in 2009, based on the recommendation of his screening committee.

The judgeship for which Mr. Durkin has been nominated is considered a ``judicial emergency'' by the Judicial Conference of the United States. Confirmation of this qualified nominee will ease the backlog of cases and allow the dispensation of justice in a fair and timely manner.

I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership, and I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan nomination and confirm Mr. Durkin to the Federal bench.

Mr. President, I wish to offer my strong endorsement for the nomination of John ``Jay'' Tharp to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Jay Tharp will be an outstanding addition to the Federal bench. He made a name for himself as an assistant U.S. attorney whose cases included political corruption and money laundering. His impressive tenure in that office includes service in the General Crimes Division and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force. Since leaving the U.S. Attorney's office in 1997, Tharp has worked at Mayer Brown LLP, where he was made partner in 1999. He is currently coleader of Mayer Brown's securities litigation and enforcement practice.

I want to thank Senator Durbin for his continued dedication and hard work to ensure the Senate's timely confirmation of both Illinois judicial nominees, Jay Tharp and John Lee.

Under Senate tradition for Illinois, the senator from the party not in control of the White House makes nomination recommendations to the White House for one Federal district court judgeship for every three of the party in power. The arrangement is intended to ensure the orderly filing of Federal judge vacancies on the Illinois bench. Under that tradition, John Tharp was my first recommendation.

Jay served our country in the Marine Corps from 1982 to 1988, achieving the rank of Captain and earning the Navy Achievement Medal and the Navy Distinguished Midshipman Award. He subsequently attended Northwestern University Law School on a full merit John Henry Wigmore Scholarship. While at Northwestern, Jay served as book review editor of the Northwestern Law Review. He graduated magna cum laude in 1990.

Last week, the Senate voted to confirm John Lee to fill one of the vacancies for the Northern District. Senator Durbin and I worked closely to recommend both Jay Tharp and John Lee and today's vote on Jay's nomination will hopefully conclude the process to fill these two vacancies.

I would also like to thank my Judicial Review Advisory Board, chaired by Peter Baugher of Schopf & Weiss LLP, for their hard work in selecting Jay Tharp. In February 2011, I formed this 14-member bipartisan, Statewide screening committee and charged it with identifying ``the strongest applicants from Illinois for consideration by the President and U.S. Senate.''

My Advisory Board received nearly 50 applications, met five times, and spent over 300 man-hours to review judicial candidates. The Advisory Board's review process included personal interviews as well as calls to colleagues, opposing counsel, and judges.

I urge my colleagues to support Jay Tharp's nomination.

Mr. President, I am in support of S.J. Res. 36 and thank the Senator from Wyoming for introducing it.

I worry that the recent direction of the National Labor Relations Board is killing American jobs, not creating them. This resolution concerns a new rule regarding ambush or quickie union elections. But this action is just the latest in a number of other anti-job creation activities at the NLRB.

The case last year against the Boeing Corporation is a perfect example of where the NLRB actions threatened to kill thousands of new U.S. jobs. By threatening to shut down a new plant producing the new 787 Dreamliner in South Carolina, the NLRB's actions would have cost Boeing billions of dollars. This case has made U.S. companies reconsider building new plants at home, costing high-quality American jobs.

I am particularly worried about a proposed rule by the NLRB that would require employers to turn over employee personal contact information to unions, including personal e-mail addresses and cell phone numbers. This is a blatant violation of an individual's privacy. No one should have access to that type of information, unless you want to provide it. As a Congressman, I fought for easy access to opt into the Do Not Call List, so that you will not be disturbed by unwanted telephone calls. This rule would allow unions to have access to that very same information that the overwhelming majority of Americans do not want to be public. The NLRB is completely out of touch with what is important to Americans.

The resolution on the floor of the Senate specifically addresses the new NLRB rule that would shorten the time frame for a union election to as little as 10 days. The new rule is set to go into effect on April 30. These ambush elections rush workers into making quick decisions, which are often uninformed ones, on an issue that directly affects their every day life in the workplace. Forcing workers to make this quick decision runs against the heart of our democratic system, based on the principles of fairness and justice.

Quickie elections will be particularly harmful to small businesses. Small businesses are the engine of our economy and our greatest job creators. Small business owners have a range of responsibilities and fewer resources than larger corporations. They will struggle to respond to the new, accelerated timeframe for elections. Their compliance costs will almost certainly rise; taking money that could have been put into enhancing their business, growing the economy, and creating jobs.

The NLRB continues to find ways to prevent job growth and inhibit our economy instead of enhancing it. This new rule on ambush elections is no different. I thank the Senator from Wyoming, my ranking member on the HELP Committee, for this resolution and I urge its passage.

Madam President, I wish to rise in support of the Feinstein-Leahy-Lee legislation. We are taking up the Defense authorization bill with the controversial provisions in it, somewhat protected already by the Feinstein language. But this legislation locks in a fundamental truth that I think is important for our country, and that is as a U.S. citizen inside the territory of the United States, you have inalienable rights under our Declaration of Independence. We are protected pursuant to the U.S. Constitution.

Our Constitution says all crimes, and prosecution thereof, shall be pursuant to a grand jury indictment. There is no exception in the Constitution for that. The Constitution grants a U.S. citizen a trial in the State in which the crime was committed, I think clearly envisioning a civilian trial. We, as Americans, have a right to a speedy trial, not indefinite detention.

We as Americans have a right to a jury of our peers, which I would argue is not enlisted or military personnel sitting in a jury. You cannot search our persons or our places of business or homes without probable cause under the Bill of Rights. You cannot be deprived of your freedom or your property without due process of law, and that, I would say, is not indefinite detention. All due process guarantees under law are granted to you by the 14th amendment. I would actually argue that no statute and no Senate and no House can take these rights away from you.

It is very important to pass this legislation to prevent needless litigation against constitutional rights, which I regard already as your birthright as an American citizen. It is very important to talk about what the Feinstein legislation does and does not do. I think it is very narrowly crafted to defend the rights of American citizens and resident aliens inside the United States. We agree that aliens who are engaged or captured on foreign battlefields can be subjected to rough justice, battlefield outcomes, or detention and prosecution by the U.S. military.

We even agree that a U.S. citizen such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who took up arms against the United States from his terrorist base, Yemen, is then the proper subject of U.S. military action, and he received that proper attention. Illegal aliens, even inside the United States--we are not engaging on that subject. If they are part of jihad or other warfare against the United States, they can be subjected to military jurisdiction. But with regard to U.S. citizens and resident aliens on U.S. soil, I would argue that the entire point of the Department of Defense is to defend our constitutional rights and to make sure they are honored. If you read the Constitution--and I would urge all Members in this battle to reread it; it is only 5,000 words long--you will see that the rights provided are without qualification and are part of your birthright.

What is the first thing a U.S. Senator, a Member of Congress, or the President does? They swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States. What is the first act any American or resident alien joining the U.S. military does? They don't swear allegiance to a President or a leader or a territory; they swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, and that is the mission which they are undertaking to protect.

We see a number of cases cited--as I noted, Ex parte Quirin, the German spy, or U.S. nationals who landed in Long Island and were summarily executed under U.S. military justice. I would say at least they were part of a foreign military and trained in that mission and trying to carry out that mission when that rough justice was put in place.

With regard to Jose Padilla, he was a U.S. citizen--sometimes when I was at the State Department, people would ask me who our Ambassador to Puerto Rico was. Puerto Rico is part of the United States. He was a full member of the country, with U.S. citizenship. He was arrested at O'Hare Airport, but pursuant to executive action was immediately taken into military custody and held in a brig. I regard all of his constitutional rights were then violated. In the subsequent litigation, I think eventually the Bush administration realized they were about to lose this case, which is why they kicked him back into civilian court.

In the Hamdi case, which is so often cited, even there we at least had a foreign connection, foreign training as part of another battlefield. What we are talking about here is very narrow, to make sure at the very least that you, as a U.S. citizen in U.S. territory, are not going to be subjected to indefinite military detention and military justice, that all of your constitutional rights are adhered to.

I would simply ask this--also as a reserve naval officer--what U.S. military officer wants the duty to roll in, for example, to Peoria, IL, and arrest an American citizen for actions that citizen has only done in the United States, not connected to a foreign military or training, and then to put that person through military detention and justice? I would say for the long-term interest of the U.S. military and to protect the U.S. military, we do not want to give that mission to our Armed Forces. A point of common sense should prevail here as well.

We spend billions of dollars on the Department of Homeland Security, which is fully under the fourth and sixth amendments of our constitutional protection. We have an extraordinarily able FBI, ATF, DEA, et cetera, the whole panoply of Federal law enforcement, which, quite properly, is not under the administration of the Pentagon but is instead under the administration of the Department of Justice. We have a vast array of State and local law enforcement all dedicated to protecting the United States but, most importantly, to uphold the very oaths they also take in their first minute as law enforcement officers to protect the U.S. Constitution.

So on this day that we pass the NDAA, which has a murky provision regarding this--somewhat protected by the Feinstein legislation--it is very important for us then to rally behind the further legislative protections here. I think this is strong, bipartisan legislation. I commend Senator Feinstein, Chairman Leahy, and Senator Lee for bringing it forward. No. 1, this will help protect the U.S. military from missions that it should not undertake. No. 2, we will make sure there is clear delineation between the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, and its whole panoply of agencies, and our military, which protects our rights from threat overseas. But, most importantly, No. 3, to defend the U.S. Constitution, your birthright as an American citizen to have these rights to make sure we do not subject any U.S. citizen apprehended inside the United States to indefinite detention under U.S. military authority, knowing they have inalienable birthrights that were granted to them by the U.S. Constitution.

With that, I commend the Chair.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Madam President, we have two other provisions that are in the National Defense Authorization Act that I want to briefly mention.

First, we have a modified Brooks amendment in the conference report that says if there is any plan to deliver classified missile defense data to the Russians, the administration has to have a 60-day clock expire and then certify to the Congress that none of this data could end up in the hands of third parties, particularly the Iranians or Syrians. I wish to put the administration on notice that that certification probably cannot be made. Dmitry Rogozin, the lead negotiator on the missile defense for their government, has a close and continuing relationship with Iran. He is going to Iran next month. When we see the intelligence sharing and cooperation on

missiles and on other weaponry, but especially discussions about a second nuclear reactor in Iran, I think we should all realize that any classified data on U.S. missile defense going to the Russians would be given to the Iranians.

Remember, in missile combat between enemies of the United States and ourselves, everything would be over potentially in a matter of hours. If the Russians accomplish by diplomacy what they have failed to do by espionage, which is getting critical details of U.S. missile defense, and especially missile defenses of Poland and other key allies, we give only a few minutes to a few hours to the U.S. commander to be able to diagnose the problem, understand how he has been penetrated or fooled, and to correct that. I think that weakens the defenses of the United States significantly.

I had a hold on the nominee for the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, Michael McFaul. Because of the passage of the modified Brooks amendment and a written letter of assurances given to me by the administration, I have now lifted that hold. I will be supporting his nomination also because he will be good in working with the opposition and human rights communities in Russia.

But I think everyone is now on notice that we should not move forward with any plan to provide classified missile defense data to Russia because it will be shared with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and that is one of the principal threats for which the U.S. and NATO missile defenses are arrayed against.

A second provision which is in the National Defense Authorization Act concerns Iran itself. Senator Menendez and I teamed up on an amendment that also says: If you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you may not do business with the United States. But we provided critical flexibility to the administration. The amendment is not imposed for weeks, if not months, and two critical waivers are put in the amendment which say, No. 1, if we find a critical shortage in oil markets because of Iran's leading role, sanctions could be delayed if not suspended. Also, there is a general national security waiver put in if something unexpected happens. But, in general, the rule goes forward that we are moving forward on a comprehensive plan to collapse the Central Bank of Iran.

Despite Secretary Geithner opposing the Menendez-Kirk amendment, this body voted 100 to 0 to support that amendment because we know of the International Atomic Energy Agency's report that they may be getting close to having enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. We know of Iran's support for Hezbollah and Hamas. We know of their oppression of minorities, especially 330,000 Baha'is, who have been prohibited from contracting with the Iranian Government. Kids are not allowed to be in university. We even know of one poor Iranian actress who was sentenced to 90 lashes, later suspended, for simply appearing in an Australian film without a head dress.

The time for action on Iran is now. With the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act and the signature that we now expect from the President, a set of clocks begins, 60- and 180-day clocks. I will be teaming with Senator Menendez and others--in fact, with the entire U.S. Senate that supported this--to make sure we have the toughest action possible to collapse the Central Bank of Iran, which the Treasury Department noted is the central money launderer for that government to support terror and nuclear proliferation.

With that, I yield the floor. Actually, I yield to my colleague from New Hampshire.

Mr. President, too often we have set-piece speeches in the Senate without any resort to the traditional debate, where two sides are equally dividing time without a set script on a critical issue before our country. I would like to restart the true Senate tradition of debate with a debate with my colleague from Delaware.

I will yield to him right now.

What I would like to do now, in sort of a chess clock style, is take 10 minutes, with unanimous consent, to be equally divided between me and the Senator from Delaware on the subject of the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. President, the United States needs to adopt a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson backed it and it is an even more important idea today. What we are seeing in Europe is a collapse of government finance because they have spent too much, taxed too much, and borrowed too much. Not only do they have a crisis of their government debt, but they have higher taxes and lower economic performance because of that philosophy.

We cannot repeat that mistake. That is why the Senate should have adopted a balanced budget amendment. I will speak in bipartisan fashion--any of the balanced budget amendments we considered today would have been better, rather than to subject our country to a rising tide of debt and an economic model which is already, we are seeing, failing in Europe.

What we see now, today, though, is that we are awash in $15 trillion in debt and that since the creation of the triple A credit rating by Standard & Poor's, the United States has now lost that rating.

When young Americans are born today, they already owe the Federal Government $40,000. So they will have a lower income and a higher tax burden throughout their working lives because of the debts put on them.

The biggest reason for a balanced budget amendment, though, is we have a structural inability to represent young Americans. They cannot vote until they are age 18. Yet the representatives of their parents can transfer tremendous burdens onto that young generation of Americans. The essence of the American dream is that our children's lives will be better than our own. But given the weight of the debt we are now transferring onto the backs of the next generation, that may no longer be possible.

We absolutely have to have a structural way to prevent one generation from transferring new spending and new debt to the new generation so the American ideal is preserved and so they have a fighting chance to have a better life than their parents.

The job of each generation is to make sure the Constitution deals with critical problems facing the country, so we amended the Constitution so we could prohibit slavery. We amended the Constitution so we could grant women the right to vote. We should amend the Constitution to prevent one generation from encumbering the next generation.

America is the greatest experiment in self-government and, more important, the underlying value of self-rule ever designed. But we have seen in recent days that self-control disappear. We work in the Senate, now well onto I think 900 days, without a budget. This is the most successful corporation, the most successful enterprise on Earth, representing the real aspiration for human dignity and freedom. Yet that is in danger if we become indebted to China and other countries in ways that no previous generation of Americans have done. This country has regularly amended the Constitution to fix inequities in our society, and the growing inequity we see today is debt and deficits, especially to other countries. Therefore, we should amend the Constitution to protect those who cannot yet vote from an economic fate that would otherwise befall them.

I would close by saying the Senator and I agree. I think the Simpson-Bowles plan is the right way to go, and my hope is that we join together on a bipartisan basis to reduce expected Federal borrowing by $4 trillion along the lines of that bipartisan Presidential commission. But, unfortunately, the Simpson-Bowles plan is gathering dust. The supercommittee that was given procedural powers to possibly put that forward also collapsed. We have not been able to do our job, and we are now encumbering the next generation with even greater amounts of debt--historic amounts.

I think the Founding Fathers did not contemplate the ability to borrow as much from other countries as we now have, and with the United States as the center of freedom and democracy around the world there is a lot riding on the credit of the United States.

My colleague from Delaware talks about a very vital future-- especially for people like my own mother--of Social Security and Medicare, but I think she understands that a bankrupt country cannot support Social Security and Medicare. We have to defend the credit of the United States, and therefore I think a balanced budget amendment is essential to the long-term future of the United States.

With that, I thank my colleague.

Mr. President, we have just finished. I hope we do return to a tradition of actual debate, and I thank my colleague for the chance to carry out this debate.

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

Mr. President, I rise to talk about the balanced budget amendment. It is obvious America's government is spending, taxing, and borrowing too much. That is why Congress should approve the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. It was a good idea when Thomas Jefferson supported it, and it is an even better idea today.

America is a great experiment in self-government. Self-government requires self-control. Early thinkers about America's democracy worried about the capacity of the government to borrow in a way that would cripple our freedom.

Children cannot vote, but the Congress of their parents can put our kids into debt. We should fight fiscal child abuse by ending such borrowing that hurts our kids' long-term economic future.

In recent days, we witnessed clear warning signs that the days of big borrowing are ending, not because Congress has changed its free- spending ways but because lenders are increasingly worried that they will never be repaid. This summer, America lost its triple-A credit rating, according to Standard & Poor's. This loss of confidence mirrors a crisis in Europe reflecting a collective judgment that Greece and Ireland and Portugal and Spain and even Italy may not be able to repay the amount of money they have borrowed. As Prime Minister Thatcher reportedly said, ``Eventually governments run out of other people's money.''

In this environment, it is important to show how we are different from Europe. If we approve the balanced budget amendment and cut spending, we will restore confidence in the Federal debt, in America's economy, but most important, in the ideal of self-government.

America owes $15 trillion or about $40,000 for each new American born. For their sake, we need to restrict the ability of the current generation to obligate young Americans to pay their debts.

Should this amendment fail, we will wound the long-term credit of the United States. More deeply, we will hurt the ideal of self-government and self-control that is the foundation of our freedom.

Egypt

I would like to take this moment to talk about another issue; that is, we as Americans support freedom and democracy and the rights of all peoples. But, as Gaza taught us in 2006, free elections by themselves do not make up a democracy. There are times when people are offered a chance to elect party leaders who offer them only one election to affirm a dictatorship. We can also learn from the year 1938 that the dangers of ignoring developments abroad are huge. Now, in the wake of the Arab Spring, we turn away from that region at our own peril.

On November 28, the first stage of the Egyptian elections began, which will inaugurate a new electoral system forming a bicameral legislature. This first stage determines about 30 percent of the 498 seats for the government's lower chamber, called the People's Assembly.

Before Egyptians arrived at the polls, protesters filled Tahrir Square in Cairo. As a result, over 40 Egyptians were killed. Many are objecting to the military's interference in the electoral process and the decision to force elections well before secular parties had time to build their capacities. According to public polling and sources on the ground, this will likely hand an electoral victory to the Muslim Brotherhood and more radical Islamist elements within the Egyptian society. Although elections will last until March of 2012, the prediction of a Muslim Brotherhood victory is already becoming a reality. Early data shows an alarming trend of Islamist domination of the Egyptian Parliament.

On December 5, the High Electoral Commission announced that leaders of the Freedom and Justice Party, the political arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, had received a plurality of 36 percent of the vote, while the secular Egyptian Bloc had gained less than 12 percent. When we include the runoff elections, which took place last week, it appears that the Muslim Brotherhood has won 73 out of 150 seats or 49 percent of the currently contested outcomes. This is the same party that led a pre-election rally of 5,000 chanting ``one day we shall kill all the Jews'' and ``Tel Aviv, Tel Aviv, Judgment Day is coming.''

While many expected the Brotherhood to do well, there were other surprises. Salafist parties, made up of anti-Western hardliners who follow a particularly radical version of Islam, are also faring particularly well. Surpassing predictions, they received 24 percent of the vote in the first round.

Importantly, these elections also included the so-called liberal districts of Cairo and the Mediterranean port city of Alexandria. The weakness of liberal parties--namely, their inability to reach out to voters effectively with a serious agenda--is now fully exposed. Islamists are taking full advantage of deeply rooted networks that extend from the mosques into Egypt's poor districts. Their grip in the traditionally conservative areas of Alexandria proved particularly tight, and these areas are also home to a majority of the Coptic Christian community.

It is clear that if Islamist parties and candidates continue their currently won gains in other elections, they will capture 60 percent of the national vote in Egypt. This will situate the new Egyptian Parliament around deep ideological differences between Salafis, the Muslim Brotherhood, and liberal groups, making the Brotherhood the power brokers between Egyptian left and right.

What does this all mean? By January, the United States could face an Egypt defined by a hatred of Israel and many of the freedoms we hold dear--a freedom of expression, of women's rights, and the right to practice any religion. This Egypt counts Iran as a friend and poses a threat to the Camp David Peace Accords, which have served as the cornerstone for Egypt's strategic position for 30 years.

Do we expect that an Islamist-led Egypt will prevent weapons from arriving in the hands of Hamas? Will an Islamist-led Egypt help preserve a free South Sudan? Will an Islamist-led Egypt act to protect Coptic Christians who make up about 10 percent of Egypt? Will we see continued violence, as we saw on October 9 in Maspero, which killed 27 civilians and injured hundreds? Will an Islamist-led Egypt do what we expect with more than $1 billion of U.S. foreign assistance? Will they continue to share intelligence and to work against terrorism? These are all questions that may become critical issues for the national security of the United States very shortly.

All of this instantly prevents foreign investment and tourism that would help the Egyptian economy. The IMF has forecasted a little over 1 percent growth for the Egyptian economy next year. They said inflation will top 11 percent, while almost 12 percent of Egyptians will be out of work. Recently, the Egyptian pound traded at its lowest level against the dollar in 7 years.

This time last year the region was on the threshold of exciting change, but today Egypt sits instead on the threshold of a very dangerous path.

The United States--and especially our State Department in particular--should do what it can to keep Egypt attached to peace and good relations with the West. The United States is now on the verge of a historic defeat and reversal of American interests in Egypt. Currently, if there is an Obama administration plan for handling a new Islamist Egypt that rejects peace with

Israel and allies with Iran, I don't know it, and I don't know if anyone does. We must keep our finger on the pulse of this process. Liberal voices in Egypt must work to preserve the democratic goals of the January revolution.

Recently, I had the privilege of meeting some of Egypt's best and brightest young liberal leaders. They would like to build a free Egypt that respects women's rights and religious minorities and the rule of law. I was encouraged in meeting with them but only hope that the coming election is not like a 1930s election in Germany, where people in Egypt are given one choice--to affirm a dictatorship--and then that is the end.

If a radical Islamic government arises in Egypt--one that disavows the Camp David Peace Accords and no longer acts as a stable strategic partner in the Middle East--then we will look back on the recent election in Egypt and its successors in December and January as the turning point for a historic reversal of the United States.

My hope is that the State Department watches this very carefully. My hope is that we have a plan to make sure this critical country stays within the U.S. orbit. But my fear, given the recent elections in Egypt, is that we have already lost quite a bit of ground.

If current trends continue, then by the middle of next year we will have a Muslim Brotherhood government in command of the Suez Canal, in charge of Cairo--the second center of learning in the Arab world--along the border of our Israeli allies, friendly to Hamas, friendly to Iran, and hostile to Europe and the United States. My hope is that over the holidays we will work very hard and diligently with our allies--and especially liberal forces in Egypt--to make sure that reversal doesn't happen.

With that, Mr. President, 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.

Mr. President, I wish to speak as in morning business to talk about the big issue pending before the Senate, which is the potential legislation by Republicans or Democrats to cut contributions to Social Security. I am very worried because in the legislation we considered last week, we had proposals to cut contributions to Social Security by $250 billion. This was legislation proposed by Democratic leaders and then a separate piece of legislation by Republican leaders. I think that legislation was a mistake on both sides.

We have precious few bipartisan institutions or contacts in this Senate. Senator Manchin and I--one Democratic and one Republican Senator, both freshmen--meet every Thursday for lunch. At our Thursday lunch last week, Senator Manchin initially said: I am having difficulty. I don't think I am going to be able to vote for the Democratic bill to cut Social Security contributions.

I said: I join you in that because I am not going to be able to vote for the Republican bill that cuts Social Security contributions.

So the two of us voted pro-Social Security and against the legislation before us.

I am very worried that we are forgetting the lessons that are currently playing out in Europe on this subject. As Margaret Thatcher said, ``Eventually socialists run out of other people's money.'' The collapse of European socialism underscores the lesson that you cannot run a retirement system without contributions.

We know already that the Social Security system is running slightly in the red. Contributions into the system are going to run $10 billion behind the cost of honoring benefits to seniors. But under this legislation we would underfund Social Security by $250 billion. We would increase the tide of red ink to Social Security by 20 times. I think that is a mistake.

AARP tells us that Social Security is not a welfare program, it is a retirement security program paid by the contributions of workers and we should run this program with the contribution of workers.

Remember, if we make this decision to cut contributions to Social Security, we replace those contributions with government bonds, but the government bonds we would ask seniors to trust no longer have a triple- A credit rating from Standard & Poor's. It is basically asking seniors to trust us.

When you look at the details of the Democratic bill and the Republican bill, you see another disturbing trend. The Democratic and Republican bills both depend on revenue streams that take many years to repay what is lost to Social Security. Under the Republican bill, there are promised cuts which could be reversed by a future administration or Congress. It takes until 2018 to repay the senior citizens what has been lost in Social Security contributions under the trust fund. Under the Democratic bill, there was a political tax on millionaires, and it takes until 2021 to repay seniors.

The message that Senator Manchin and I had, as one Democrat and one Republican, is, how about not charging seniors? How about not causing a tide of red ink to Social Security? How about making sure we maintain contributions to that program? Seniors have enough to worry about right now. They should not have to worry about the future solvency of Social Security.

One analyst described how, under the legislation, it requires temporary borrowing of an additional $240 billion for the Federal budget. I am worried that kind of borrowing could trigger an earlier loss of the debt limit of the United States, so we could trigger the battle we all expect for next January to actually happen--ominously for the President, prior to the election--if this legislation would pass.

Common sense should prevail, that we should run a retirement security

system with adequate contributions to maintain benefits, that we should agree on a bipartisan basis that Social Security is one of the most successful Federal programs ever signed, that we should say to seniors: Among all the other worries you have, you should not worry about Congress underfunding the trust fund for Social Security. We should say to seniors: We are not replacing solid contributions coming in from workers with bonds that no longer have a AAA credit rating from Standard & Poor's.

I urge members of AARP to reach out to their leaders and say: We urge you to forcefully advocate for maintaining adequate contributions to Social Security; that we don't think promises of a millionaire's tax that repays the debts until 2021 or spending cuts that repay the debts until 2018 are something we can fully trust.

So I urge Members of this body to maintain adequate contributions to Social Security, to defeat both the Republican and Democratic bills, to learn the lessons of Europe that we need to maintain a retirement security system with adequate contributions, and that we should not sink the Social Security trust fund in a wave of red ink on gimmick legislation which already would impinge the credit of the United States to a degree that it should not be impinged any further.

With that I yield the floor, and I thank my senior colleague from New York.

Mr. President, I rise in tribute to an American hero and Illinois resident who was laid to rest at Arlington National Cemetery on December 2.

Reginald Cooper Augustine, Jr. was born on October 12, 1913 in Decatur, IL. His parents, Reginald and Pauline, were prominent members of the community, both serving at different times on the Decatur school board.

Reginald was an all American kid growing up in Illinois during the Great Depression. As a teenager in the 1920s, he spent his Saturdays at the silent moving pictures. In junior high, he spent a year delivering the Decatur Herald--getting up every morning at 3 a.m. and returning to bed by 5 a.m. During high school, he played football and participated in the school band, while also working at the Biflex Bumper Company.

After graduating from Decatur High School in 1931, Reginald attended Northwestern University as a member of the third entering class of Austin Scholars. This program, launched in September 1929, provided full room, board, and tuition for 4 undergraduate years, plus a year of all-expenses paid study and travel abroad. He received his bachelor's degree from Northwestern in 1935, with a major in Latin and a minor in German. These language skills proved pivotal in the direction of the rest of his life.

After college, Reginald spent 16 months touring Europe and North Africa on a Harley-Davidson motorcycle that he acquired in Rotterdam, perfecting his knowledge of German, French, Italian, Dutch, and Spanish. During an extended stay in Germany, he witnessed a Nazi party rally in Heidelberg that he later described as akin to a Fourth of July celebration with scarlet swastika banners and leather-booted storm troopers. He returned to the U.S. in late September 1937, never forgetting what he had witnessed.

The Selective Service Act of 1940 required all U.S. residents between the ages of 21 and 35 to register, and in 1940, Mr. Augustine was 27. He was to be drafted in February, 1942, but after the Japanese Empire bombed Pearl Harbor, he went straight to the enlistment center in Peoria to sign up and serve his country in the U.S. Army Air Corps.

During the Second World War, Mr. Augustine was selected to join an elite detachment of linguists, spies and scientists by COL Boris Pash, who headed a mission code-named Alsos. This mission was led by LTG Leslie R. Groves under the Manhattan Project. Groves suspected German physicists were engaging in a similar nuclear program and feared that they would complete a bomb first. The Alsos mission was tasked with determining whether the Nazis had developed an atomic bomb. Mission operatives moved into newly liberated areas just behind advancing Allied lines to find Nazi scientists, capture and interrogate them, as well as confiscate and secure stocks of refined uranium that were urgently needed by the Manhattan Project.

Reginald was selected as an ideal candidate and put in charge of field operations for this elite detachment because of his knowledge of French and German, as well as his extensive experience in Europe. During one operation in search of uranium in September 1944, he and Colonel Pash entered a plant located near Antwerp, Belgium where fighting was still going on between British and German forces. There, they found approximately 70 tons of refined uranium.

Far more difficult was a mission to southern France, which at that time was a dangerous no man's land, occupied by 2 competing resistance movements--one Communist, the other non-Communist. According to Reginald's memoirs, ``no British or American forces, and not even any units of the regular French army'' were present in the area. As part of a group of 6 Alsos officers, he conducted the negotiations with partisans and officials. At a French arsenal in Toulouse, armed with a Geiger counter, he discovered a major cache of uranium. Reginald, Colonel Pash, and a well-armed U.S. military contingent later returned to remove the uranium by force. Reginald accompanied the shipment of uranium back to the U.S. on a U.S. Navy ship. This uranium was eventually used in the Little Boy bomb dropped on Hiroshima.

Reginald went on many other critical missions, including one to recover the international radium standards from a small eastern German town only hours before it was handed over to Soviet forces. He oversaw the safe transfer of Nazi scientists, as well as American scientists, from one place to another. On one occasion, he found himself face-to- face with a Nazi checkpoint, manned by an armed German crew, but escaped unharmed.

Another mission that Reginald described as ``a grand climax to all Alsos operations in the war,'' was the seizure of a strategic German atomic research center near Stuttgart. Once the area had been secured, he escorted several captured German scientists to American territory, including Otto Hahn, discoverer of the nuclear fission principle, Nobelist Max von Laue, and physicists Karl Wirtz, Erich Bagge and Carl von Weizsacker.

Robert Norris, author of the 2003 book Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Manhattan Project's Indispensable Man, noted that ``Alsos was one of the most successful intelligence operations of the war.''

Reginald was promoted to the rank of captain by the end of the war. He was decorated for his service, including the Bronze Star and Order of the British Empire, which he received personally from King George

If I could engage the Senator in a colloquy, this is a chart that shows the legislation we are considering today. What it shows is the tremendous hit to the tax that supports Social Security. This is the Old Age Survivors Disability Act. It is a $240 billion hit to the funding to support Social Security. We both are going to vote no on both pieces of legislation today because we do not think seniors should take this level of hit.

In the Casey-Reid legislation--this is where the so-called millionaires' tax comes in--it only refunds what Social

Security needs to the level of 7 percent in 2013. In fact, according to one analysis, we may trigger the end of the debt limit before the election if we pass this because of the $246 billion we will have to borrow temporarily until the long stretch of this revenue comes in.

I thank the Chair.

I would say, this is a very long payout, both under the majority and minority piece of legislation. I am hoping enough Members say no to both pieces of legislation so we defend Social Security, and I commend the Senator.

With that, I yield and commend the Senator. We are hoping for two ``no'' votes because we think those are the votes that support Social Security and its continued revenue.

I rise in very strong support of the Menendez-Kirk amendment.

I wish to compliment the Senator from New Jersey for an outstanding performance in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today in which he called on the representatives of our government to move quicker on this.

We saw the Baha'is radicals of Iran overrun the embassy of our allies in the United Kingdom. We saw the British Prime Minister just announce that he was removing all Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom. We saw the Government of Italy announcing that they were suspending some diplomatic activities. We have seen a whole number of actions by the EU now to join with us on sanctions.

I will just say with regard to this amendment that it has now been cosponsored formally by 46 Senators: Menendez, Kirk, Barrasso, Blumenthal, Blunt, Boozman, Brown of Massachusetts, Brown of Ohio, Cardin, Casey, Collins, Coons, Crapo, Feinstein, Franken, Gillibrand, Graham, Hatch, Heller, Johanns, Klobuchar, Kyl, Lautenberg, Lee, Lieberman, Manchin, Merkley, Mikulski, Moran, Murkowski, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Portman, Pryor, Risch, Roberts, Schumer, Snowe, Stabenow, Tester, Thune, Toomey, Vitter, Warner, Whitehouse, and Wyden. These 46 Members are on the shoulders of the 92 who signed the Kirk-Schumer letter in August. When in these partisan times do we have all but eight Senators agreeing on a policy?

I will just note, as Senator Menendez and Senator McCain pointed out, the administration is somewhat worried about this amendment, but Senator Menendez correctly provided flexibility to the administration by saying,

No. 1, if the energy information agency says oil markets are tight and issues a report on the affected oil markets, these sanctions could be suspended for a time. On top of that one waiver, there is a second waiver for the national security of the United States that the President could have that kind of flexibility.

So with flexibility, with bipartisan support, with outrageous activity by Iran, in the face of the IAEA report, moving toward a nuclear weapon, with the danger we see from that government and Hezbollah and Hamas against our allies in Lebanon and Israel, with the plot announced by the Attorney General of the United States to blow up a Georgetown restaurant in an effort to kill the Saudi Arabian Ambassador, with the plight of 330,000 Baha'is oppressed by that country, with someone like Nasrin Sotoudeh, the lawyer for Shirin Ebadi--the Noble Prize laureate's lawyer was thrown in jail just for representing that client--for all these reasons, this is the right amendment, at the right time, sending the right message in the face of a very irresponsible regime.

I yield back and thank the Senator for offering this well-timed amendment.

Mr. President, this Menendez-Kirk amendment is a strong, bipartisan amendment. Over half of the Senate has formally cosponsored it. I urge its adoption, especially after the bomb plot in Washington, DC, the IAEA report on nuclear development in Iran, and the overrunning of our British ally's embassy site by Iran 2 days ago.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Menendez- Kirk amendment. I particularly thank my partner Senator Menendez, a member of the Banking Committee, who has been a leader regarding Iranian terror, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and repression of human rights for 20 or 25 years now.

We are reaching a decisive point now in the relations of Iran to other countries and, most importantly, to the United States. I think this amendment comes at one of the final hours of how peaceful means and economic sanctions can be used to avoid a conflict. That is why it is so important for the Senate to adopt the Menendez-Kirk amendment, with the long-term goal of collapsing the Central Bank of Iran, so that country doesn't produce nuclear weapons that would destabilize the entire Middle East. We launched this effort, along with Senator Schumer, particularly in August when we called on our President to sanction the Central Bank of Iran.

In these partisan times in which the two sides are far apart on many issues, we had 92 Senators--all but 8 Senators signed the letter-- saying: Collapse the Central Bank of Iran and use this as a tool in our diplomatic war chest to make sure we can remove one of the greatest dangers from the country, from one of the most dangerous regimes.

The record is pretty clear. The International Atomic Energy Agency has ruled on the subject of Iran. We remember the IAEA because they, with regard to Iraq and the Saddam Hussein weapons of mass destruction program, were consistently correct and the Bush administration was wrong. The IAEA said in its intelligence estimate that the threat was overstated in Iraq. So with that level of credibility, we should listen to the IAEA on the subject of Iran. There, they have been extremely clear as well.

They have outlined how Iran has a separate enrichment cycle, going way above the enrichment of uranium necessary to fuel a civilian reactor--5 percent--now toward 20 percent, where there is no civilian use, moving toward the 98 percent needed to power a nuclear weapon.

They talked about undisclosed nuclear facilities, especially a brandnew one, which appears to be the final cascade necessary to enrich uranium to bomb-grade material.

They most ominously talk about a warhead of a particular weight that would equate what would be in a nuclear weapon. Unlike a conventional warhead, which basically has a spark initiator and explosive material, this warhead has an electric generator aboard. That is only used to power and initiate a nuclear explosion.

So it is clear from the statements of the independent United Nations agency that Iran--a signatory on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty-- is violating its obligation and is creating, as fast as it can, a nuclear weapons program.

We also know that Iran has become the first space-bearing nation of the 21st century and that, unlike the North Koreans, who have failed in space launch time after time, Iran was able to orbit the Omid satellite aboard the Safir rocket and is the first nation to be able to accomplish that technological fete in this century. If you can orbit anywhere over the Earth, you can deorbit over the Earth--an ominous sign for the future of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, our allies in Turkey, but especially our friends in Israel, and, in the long term, the United States.

The record of Iran with regard to its own citizens shows the character of its government. Long ago, we knew about 330,000 Baha'i citizens of Iran who have been forced to register their addresses, whose kids have all been kicked out of universities, and whose families are not allowed any contracting with the Government of Iran. The bureaucratic mechanisms of Kirstallnacht have formed. We have seen this movie in a different decade, wearing different uniforms, in a different country, but the ominous signs are that it may turn out in the same way.

Many people on the international committee know about Neda, who was protesting the stealing of an election in Iran, and of her death simply for protesting that stolen election. We know about Hossein Ronaghi, the first blogger, who called for tolerance in Iran, who is now languishing in Evin prison. We know about Nasrin Sotoudeh, age 48, mother of two, whose sole crime was representing Shirin Ebadi, a Nobel laureate, and how she was thrown in jail.

Beyond the nuclear program, beyond the missile program, beyond the repression of human rights in the country, we know about Iran's long record of terror; that Iran is the paymaster for Hezbollah. We have known that for a long time. They have tortured the poor country of Lebanon. But in some sense, there was a symmetry. We understood how this Shiite power would support a Shiite sect in Lebanon even though they spoke Arabic. But then, over the last decade, they jumped the Shiite-Sunni divide, and they also backed a new terror group called Hamas that was trying to surround our allies in Israel with missiles and the terror necessary to extinguish the Jewish people and the Jewish State.

We know how the Iranian regime is now one of the central pillars of the Syrian dictatorship and how, as that dictatorship hangs onto power, it is somewhat on the back of Iranian money and Iranian weapons and expertise that allows them to repress their own people. Most recently, on the back of a bipartisan certification that Iran supports terror from President Reagan, President Bush, President Clinton, President Bush, and President Obama, we have seen a higher level of irresponsibility on behalf of the Iranian regime.

According to our own Attorney General, the head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's Quds Force, Suliman, tried to contact and hire a Mexican drug cartel--one of the most dangerous, the Zetas--to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States at a Georgetown restaurant. It was only because the incompetent Iranians hired a DEA agent in Mexico that we found out about this. They would have, had they been able to accomplish their goals, lit off a car bomb in Washington, DC, paid for by the Government of Iran and briefed all the way to the top level of their government.

Today, we find--after they had their Basij radical young person's movement overrun the British Embassy, seizing classified documents and holding, for a time, 50 British personnel--shades of the 1979 hostage crisis, when for 440 days Iranian radicals held Americans. Our allies in the United Kingdom have now made the decision to remove all Iranian diplomats from the United Kingdom.

We have seen other calls, brave calls, of allied action. A man I admire greatly, the President of France, President Sarkozy, has called for seizing all purchases of Iranian oil. He has publicly called for the collapse of the Iranian Central Bank.

So it is with this level of irresponsibility--on nuclear technology, on missiles, on the repression of human rights, on the support of terror, on the plot to kill Americans inside Washington, DC, and the overrunning of an embassy of our closest ally in Europe, the United Kingdom--that we come forward with the bipartisan Menendez-Kirk amendment.

What does this amendment do? It basically says, in part, if you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States of America. It forces financial institutions and other businesses around the world to choose between the small and shrinking $300 billion economy of Iran and the $14 trillion economy of the United States. In that contest, we all

know how just about everyone will choose, and we wish that choice to be made. We seek to break the stable financial intermediary in between Iranian oil contracts and the outside world so that it will just be easier to buy oil from elsewhere and, working with our allies, to make that oil more plentiful.

We realize the concerns with this amendment. Some have said this amendment comes too quickly; that it is too soon. So that is where Senator Menendez and I have agreed, working with the administration, to give time and flexibility. Under this amendment, nothing happens right away. Several weeks and several months go by before any action is required. That is intended as a signal to oil markets that this requirement is coming, that we seek for them, as our allies--for example, in Japan or South Korea or in Turkey--to wind up their current contracts and supplies and meet their needs by other means.

By the way, other means are coming. We are expecting Libyan production to double. We are also expecting Iraqi production to go way up. Of course, we know the swing production of Saudi Arabia--no love lost toward the Iranians after having tried to kill their ambassador here. We will be working with the oil suppliers to make sure that everyone's needs are met while funding to the Iranian regime is slowly choked off.

We also provide two waivers in this amendment--and this is very important--at the request of the administration. We say if there is a temporary restriction of oil supply, this amendment can be suspended for a time. If there is some unforeseen national security disaster, some real problem the President can see, he has that flexibility.

But the general picture is this: The Central Bank of Iran, the heart and financial soul of a web of terror, of nuclear production, of human rights abuse, and the oppression of other people--principally in Syria--is no longer acceptable to the international community, and so this regime should operate without the benefit of funding from the international community.

I think this amendment is one of the last best hopes for peace and to bring effective economic sanctions to bear so that a burden doesn't fall on our friends in Saudi Arabia or our allies in Israel to do the far more tough military work that may be required to remove this common danger.

Many people say we can't convince a country that is on a nuclear weapons course to reverse course. I say, well, we show our ignorance of history because we saw the Argentines give up a nuclear program, the Brazilians, and likely the South Africans detonated a weapon and then decided to give up their program. In Kazakhstan and Ukraine, nuclear weapons were given up. In Libya, nuclear weapons were given up. With effective pressure, my hope is that it can happen here.

We know President Ahmadinejad is not popular. We know the regime in general does not enjoy the support especially of its younger citizens. We know at least half of Iranians, in a stolen election, voted for the other guy who was not allowed to take power.

So this amendment comes forward with a solid bipartisan pedigree. It has been endorsed specifically by Senators Lieberman, Schumer, Kyl, Feinstein, Gillibrand, Manchin, Nelson of Florida, Nelson of Nebraska, Stabenow, and Heller under the leadership of Senator Menendez and myself. For us, it gives time for the oil markets to adjust and unhook from Iran. It gives flexibility to the administration. But, most importantly, it helps us deal in an economic and diplomatic way with one of the greatest dangers to our society.

We think about the future ahead, and some people say this amendment could cause some disruption in oil markets. Yes, we are asking countries to unhook from the terror regime in Iran. But just think about the instability that would come if military conflict broke out between Iran and Israel or worse if nuclear weapons were loosed from Iran in the Middle East. If we do nothing, as soon as 2 years from now we could have a detonation of an Iranian nuclear weapon in the Middle East. If we show weakness and a lack of resolve, then countries in that region will decide they need nuclear weapons programs of their own. We will give birth to the Saudi nuclear weapon program, the Egyptian nuclear weapon program, and others.

This amendment is an attempt to make sure that for young Americans the 21st century is not the most dangerous century they will face, and to use the full economic weight of the United States, working with our allies, to remove what is the greatest emerging danger.

I think Senator Menendez is living in the spirit of those who watched the 1930s and worried about when America slept. Well, we are not asleep. We know exactly what is happening. By decisive bipartisan action of the Senate, we are bringing the best pressure to bear, of nonmilitary means, to make sure our kids inherit a much safer 21st century.

With that, I commend my partner in this effort, and I urge the Senate to adopt the Menendez-Kirk amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I rise in support of the Feinstein amendment with regard to section 1031 of this legislation. I am particularly worried because, unlike the authorized use of force original doctrine and legislation passed by the Congress, we limited the authority of the President and the U.S. military to those connected directly to the September 11 mass murder of Americans. I think, in times of emergency, I understand that. But the legislation would be the first congressional authorization to go far beyond that, to say that any ``person who . . . substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces''-- undefined--`` . . . including any person who has committed a belligerent act'' would be allowed to be picked up by U.S. military authorities and held in U.S. military detention.

While I am in favor of robust and flexible U.S. military action overseas, including action against American citizens waging war against the United States, such as Anwar Al-Awlaki, I think we all should agree on a special zone of protection inside the jurisdiction of the United States on behalf of U.S. citizens.

I say this in support of the Feinstein amendment because I took the time--as we all should from time to time, serving in this body--to re- read the Constitution of the United States yesterday. The Constitution says quite clearly: In the trial of all crimes--no exception--there shall be a jury, and the trial shall be held in the State where said crimes have been committed. Clearly, the Founding Fathers were talking about a civilian court, of which the U.S. person is brought before in its jurisdiction.

They talk about treason against the United States, including war in the United States. The Constitution says it ``shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

The following sentence is instructive:

No person--

``No person,'' it says--

shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two

Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open

Court.

I would say that pretty clearly, ``open court'' is likely to be civilian court.

Further, the Constitution goes on, that when a person is charged with treason, a felony, or other crime, that person shall be ``removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime''--once again contemplating civilian, State court and not the U.S. military.

As everyone knows, we have amended the Constitution many times. The fourth amendment of the Constitution is instructive here. It says:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons,

houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches

and seizures--

Including, by the way, the seizure of the person

shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, [except]

upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and

particularly describing the place to be searched, and the

persons or things to be seized.

Now, in section 1031(b)(2), I do not see the requirement for a civilian judge to issue a warrant. So it appears this legislation directly violates the fourth amendment of the Constitution with regard to those rights which are inalienable, according to the Declaration of Independence, and should be inviolate as your birth right as an American citizen.

Recall the fifth amendment, which says:

No person--

By the way, remember, ``no person''; there is not an exception here.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or

otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or

indictment--

Hear the words--

of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval

forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of

War--

Meaning there is a separate jurisdiction for U.S. citizens who are in the uniformed service of the United States. But unless you are in the service of the United States, you are one of those ``no persons'' who shall be answerable for a ``capital'' or ``infamous crime,'' except on ``indictment of a Grand Jury.''

The sixth amendment says:

In all criminal prosecutions--

Not some, not by exception; in all criminal prosecutions--

the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public

trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein

the crime shall have been committed. . . .

I go on to these because I regard all of these rights as inherent to U.S. citizens, granted to them by their birth in the United States.

If we go on through the Constitution's amendments, we find in the fourteenth amendment that it says:

No State shall make or enforce any law--

Any law--

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens

of the United States. . . .

I realize these powers have been defined by courts. But we would recall that even Abraham Lincoln ex post facto lost his ability to suspend the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to a Supreme Court decision; that in the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the Court did recognize that under the 2001 statute, the President is authorized to detain persons captured while fighting U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But I will recall-- and, by the way, this included American citizens--I will recall that was in Afghanistan.

Clearly, we see in the case where an American citizen has gone to a foreign jurisdiction, joined a terrorist organization or foreign military, and is waging war on the United States, they can be held as a detainee of the U.S. military. Why didn't this legislation say that? Why did it not restrict its purview to those provisions? In Padilla v. Hanft, the Fourth Circuit did allow the capture of a U.S. citizen, Padilla--by the way, arrested at O'Hare Airport, a U.S. citizen and held in military detention. The Fourth Circuit said because he had foreign training and a foreign connection that it was legal to hold him.

But, remember, very soon thereafter the Bush administration surrendered this case. I think the Bush administration realized they were about to lose in the Supreme Court on the subject of whether the U.S. military could arrest and detain a U.S. citizen and to deprive them of their rights and subject them only to review under a petition of habeas corpus. I think they realized they had to kick Padilla into the civilian court system, and therefore they did. It is only in that context that we should read the Padilla decision.

I think the bottom line is this: We funded a multihundred-billion- dollar Department of Defense, in the words of the movie, to put men on that wall, that we need on that wall, to defend us against foreign threats, and they must do hard and difficult things, including sometimes to U.S. citizens, such as Anwar al-Awlaki, who are waging war on the United States from a terrorist base in Yemen.

But the whole purpose of this exercise and this institution is to defend the rights of the United States and U.S. citizens inside their own country. One of the first things a person does when they join the U.S. military is not to swear allegiance to a President or to a foreign leader but actually swear allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to its rights.

What is the whole purpose of the Constitution? It is to defend our rights against the government because we are one of those unique governments that ``posits'' a limited government and which rights are reserved according to the 10th amendment to the States or the individuals; that our rights supersede the government's. So we cannot say for an individual, for example, in Wisconsin, who has never been abroad, who may or may not have committed an act or may or may not have one association, that suddenly the U.S. military can roll in on that person, seize him or her, hold them in military detention, and only subject review of that case by one habeas corpus petition.

I would argue, then, that all of our rights as American citizens hang on the decision of the President of the United States; that if the President of the United States decides a person is substantially part of al-Qaida, the Taliban, or associated forces engaged in hostilities against the United States or they have committed a belligerent act or supported such hostilities in aid of such forces, all of their rights as an American citizen are now forfeited. Clearly, that is not the case.

The Founding Fathers understood the power of the state run amok under a distant king who did not regard the rights of the individual as worth much. We founded a republic and then wrote a constitution to defend those rights. While we face a very difficult and dangerous world overseas and have to do difficult and dangerous things, which I support, we should make sure there is a place for peace and justice and rights inside the United States.

So for us, in looking at this provision, the Feinstein amendment clearly limits the scope of this legislation in an appropriate way-- that we do the difficult things overseas. But the whole purpose of the Department of Defense is to defend the United States and those rights inside our country, but that we as U.S. citizens, especially when we are inside this country, have inalienable rights which cannot be separated from us by any executive action; that we can only be held, incarcerated, that we can only have our liberties taken away from us on indictment of a grand jury, before a civilian court, and with a presumption beyond a reasonable doubt by unanimous vote of that jury.

That is the essence of who we are as Americans, and it is a historic decision that we would make if we allow this power to go forward. I think that is why Senator Paul and I were the only two Republicans to vote against this. That is why so many e-mails and letters that I have received in the last few hours support this decision.

I understand that others have a different view. They describe the United States as a battlefield. I would say that is on overly harsh determination of how cheaply our rights can be held; that we have a multihundred-billion-dollar Defense Department; that we have a substantial and capable FBI; that we have enormous State and city and local police establishments, all with the capabilities to investigate and prosecute crimes, but under the Constitution of the United States; and that if we hold U.S. citizens as capable of losing their rights on an executive branch decision, that not beyond the shadow of a doubt but on a lower standard of care, that in the executive branch's view a person is connected to one of those things, then our rights are not worth very much.

I would say the whole purpose of the Constitution is to hold our rights higher than the government and subject only to review by a civilian court. That review, as described in the Constitution of the United States, is far more than a habeas corpus review. The text of the Constitution specifically refers to grand jury indictment.

For those who have questions, I would urge them, first, take a moment to reread the Constitution, that first document which, as a member of the U.S. military or as an elected Member of this body, we have to swear allegiance to, and then make up their minds. I think when they do, they will support the Feinstein amendment.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I will yield to Senator Feinstein in a minute. I appreciate the debate with my friends and mentors. The three of us who were just debating were all military officers, but we have different views. We are dangerously close to being similar to the House of Representatives, where they have face-to-face debate. I appreciate that.

The law that should not be changed is the Constitution of the United States, and we realize the regulations of the United States have force, that the statutes of the United States have greater force, and the Supreme Court decisions have even greater force. But no document is above the actual words of the Constitution. I will say those words are our birthright as American citizens.

The sixth amendment says you shall be secure in your person and that shall not be violated and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause--meaning that a court has made that decision. Your first amendment rights say that no person--and there is no exception in the Constitution--shall be held to answer for capital or otherwise infamous crimes, unless presentment or indictment of a grand jury.

By the way, I am talking specifically about a U.S. person inside the jurisdiction of the United States. Our sixth amendment right says that in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial. Our fourteenth amendment right says no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States. These are, without question, for U.S. citizens. There is a balancing act between the threats we perceive. We know the threats from foreign enemies and terrorists. That is well known to us, especially the new generation of Americans who witnessed the mass murders of September 11.

The Founding Fathers were also wrestling with another threat--the threat of the state, the government itself, against its own individuals and the abuse of power. We would forget the lesson of history, unless we understood that is a threat as well. We are told there will be no intelligence benefit if a U.S. citizen who is arrested can't be interrogated by Homeland Defense or FBI people. And yet, I would say, as a member of the intelligence community, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security are part of the intelligence community and feed

information into the intelligence community and can be used.

One of the key ideas behind our American government is it is not what we do, it is how we do it. One of the things missing in section 1031 is who is the decider. The decider in this case is the suspicion of being part of the al-Qaida, the Taliban, or committing that belligerent act, but we have no court making the decision. As an American, you no longer have a right to the civilian court system, and those rights are inherent to you and are your birthright as an American citizen.

We should make sure that what we do here and now is that we understand your rights; that as an American citizen you can only be incarcerated on indictment by a grand jury, which is by a preponderance of evidence; and then conviction is beyond the shadow of a doubt. Under this language, if you are accused of being part of al-Qaida or the Taliban, or of committing an act, you can be held subject to only one habeas review on a preponderance of evidence.

Most Americans think you can only be convicted of a crime in the United States beyond the shadow of a doubt by a jury of your peers. But if this is passed, that is no longer true. We want to make sure the decider always is a civilian article III court. We are talking about a very specific definition here inside the jurisdiction of the United States among American citizens.

I agree we can kill Anwar al-Awlaki, who is making war on the United States from a foreign jurisdiction. But when we are inside the United States, the whole point of the U.S. military and our establishment is to defend our rights, and those rights cannot be taken away from us by any executive action. They can only be taken away from us by action of a civilian court, by a jury of our peers and by their decision beyond a shadow of a doubt.

With that, I yield for the Senator from California, whose amendment I so strongly support.

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

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

Mr. President, last week we celebrated Thanksgiving, the time of year when we look back and we give thanks for our blessings. We are all grateful for our family, our men and women in uniform, and those who also

defend our Nation in civilian life. I am particularly thankful this year, because 1 year ago today I had the honor of my life to be sworn in as the newest junior Senator for the State of Illinois to complete Senator Obama's term.

And what a year it has been. Coming from the House of Representatives, I had to adjust to the measured place and pace of the Senate. But while Americans may have a dim view of what we do here, I remain an optimist. Americans have always faced tough challenges but then rose to the occasion more successfully than any other people in history.

Although I believe there is much more to do to reduce debt, repeal burdensome regulations, and encourage job creation, I want to take a few minutes to lay out what my team has accomplished for the State of Illinois and the Nation in 1 year.

In my first 30 days in office we moved three times, we hired a staff, and then voted to prevent the largest tax increase in history, while Congress extended tax relief for millions of Americans in that legislation.

We also worked to block the transfer of al-Qaida terrorists from Guantanamo Bay to northwestern Illinois. Since then, Congress enacted the Budget Control Act, mandating about $2 trillion in reduced Federal borrowing over the next 10 years, which in my view is only a first step in addressing Washington's out-of-control spending. No one here would say that we have come near to solving the problem, but I am heartened by the bipartisan and bicameral support of the Gang of Six proposal, and now with the probable support of 45 Republican and Democratic Senators, I hope we will soon go big with their recommendations to find $4 trillion in savings.

The Congress approved three free-trade agreements to boost U.S. exports to South Korea, to Colombia, and Panama, as both President Obama and Speaker Boehner wanted. The action will open markets for Illinois farmers and boost exports for companies and employers such as John Deere in Moline, Caterpillar in Peoria, ADM in Decatur, and Navistar in suburban Warrenville.

Congress repealed the onerous requirement mandated by the health care law that required small businesses to document all payments over a few hundred dollars. This absurd 1099 rule was the first part of the health care law to be repealed, and it will soon be followed by the misnamed CLASS Act that even the Obama administration appears to have canceled by executive action.

Additionally, Congress reformed our patent system by moving to a first-to-file, instead of a first-to-invent, system. This signals to inventors that they should quickly file their invention and allows us to innovate without endless and expensive litigation. Along with that effort, the Kirk amendment authorizing the patent office to have a small business fast lane became law.

My office published a Great Lakes report card that gave our largest body of fresh water a C grade to draw attention to invasive species, to poor water quality, and beach closures, demonstrating the need for our legislation by myself and Senator Durbin to ban sewage dumping in the Great Lakes.

To create more construction jobs in Illinois, I introduced the Lincoln Legacy Infrastructure Development Act which would unlock more than $100 billion in new revenue for roads, rail, transit, and airports, through more infrastructure funded by public-private partnerships. I have since met with Secretary LaHood, Chief of Staff Daley, and House Chairman Mica as a way to advance this legislation to restart our economy.

We have also had an active year in protecting our allies and America's interests overseas. On the floor today, we may consider the Menendez-Kirk amendment pending to the Defense Authorization Act which would impose crippling sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran. This is a result of a collaborative effort involving 92 Senators who signed the Schumer-Kirk letter calling for the United States to collapse Iran's terror-sponsoring bank.

In May, Senator Gillibrand and I introduced the Iran Human Rights and Democracy Promotion Act which establishes a special representative on human rights and democracy in Iran, imposing sanctions on companies that sell or service products that enable the Iranian regime to oppress its people. It would require a comprehensive strategy to promote Internet freedom in Iran and reauthorize the Iran Freedom Support Act. The bill is now part of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Sanctions Consolidation Act.

In February, the Senate passed a Kirk resolution condemning human rights abuses in Iran, and we founded the Iranian Dissident Awareness Program to make dissidents such as Hossein Ronaghi-Maleki, a blogger and human rights activist, and Nasrin Sotoudeh, a lawyer and human rights activist, household names now in America.

We also fought for strict assurances that data collected from our new X-band radar in Turkey would be shared with our allies in Israel.

In total, my office introduced 18 bills and resolutions and 11 amendments. We cosponsored 132 pieces of legislation.

I am a member of four committees that have held more than 130 hearings and markups. This year we worked on the reform of No Child Left Behind, and those reforms passed the committee with bipartisan support. We also worked on legislation regarding flood insurance funding bills under the Appropriations Committee.

Most Americans who watch cable news think all Democrats and all Republicans may hate each other. While Congress has grown more partisan, I am particularly proud of the bipartisan partnerships we have fostered in such a short time. I have continued a longstanding battle against the corrupt sugar program by working with Senator Shaheen of New Hampshire on S. 25 to Stop Unfair Giveaways and Restrictions Act, the SUGAR Act of 2011, which would eliminate sugar price supports and increased costs for consumers that destroy American manufacturing jobs.

Senator Wyden and I introduced legislation targeting more than $60 billion in Medicare fraud every year by issuing new identify theft- proof medical ID cards, offering the same ID card protection our troops have for our seniors.

I also joined Senator Wyden in his efforts to ensure your constitutional rights are protected with regard to your GPS data and cell phone and other location information.

Senator Casey and I worked together on antibullying legislation to keep our kids safe at school.

I joined Senator Whitehouse in an effort to criminalize the pointing of lasers against civil aircraft to keep that industry safe.

In my capacity as the top Republican member of the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Subcommittee, we worked across the aisle with Chairman Tim Johnson to pass the first stand-alone appropriations bill out of the Senate since 2009. Since then, we have broken the logjam on appropriations bills, and I hope to quickly complete that legislation.

I especially wish to recognize one of my first friends in the Senate, Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, for our collaborative effort on many issues, the latest being a bipartisan resolution calling for the Congress to go big on deficit reduction. When we first came to the Senate together, we saw that there were few opportunities for Republicans and Democrats to interact outside the Senate floor. That is why we began to have an open lunch together each Thursday instead of the regularly scheduled partisan lunches, to discuss ways to bridge the political divide in the Senate and in Washington.

I also wish to highlight the partnership I have developed with my senior Senator from the State of Illinois. While we may not see eye to eye on many issues, Senator Durbin and I have worked closely on a whole host of issues for Illinois. Following in the footsteps of the late Senator Paul Simon, Senator Durbin and I have now held more than 25 joint constituent coffees here in Washington. It is like a townhall meeting, where we talk with Illinois families about what is going on at home and in the Congress.

In March, Senator Durbin and I worked with Secretary of Transportation Ray Lahood to help the city of Chicago, American, and United Airlines come to an agreement to keep the O'Hare Modernization Program moving forward. This is the single greatest job creation program in northern Illinois, and the agreement that we helped foster keeps thousands at work at O'Hare.

We worked closely to bring high-speed rail to the State of Illinois, and together introduced legislation to expand charter schools, to improve access to EpiPens at schools for children with severe allergies, to ensure military families in North Chicago continue to receive their Federal education assistance.

We fought to open a new Federal prison in Thompson, IL, but without al-Qaida detainees, to create jobs in northwestern Illinois, and address also flooding issues in southern Illinois and levee rehabilitation in the metro east area. We have also successfully confirmed four new judges for central and northern Illinois, and have an additional two nominations, one Democrat, one Republican, pending.

But legislation is not all we do here. In my opinion, one of the most important things a Member of Congress can focus on is constituent service. We formed advisory boards for African Americans, Latinos, small business, agriculture, health care, education, and students. Since I first came to the House of Representatives in 2001, I have worked diligently as an advocate for Illinois before the Federal Government. In 1 year now, my staff has held more than 3,440 meetings with constituents and other officials and dignitaries. To be as accessible as possible, I have visited 50 out of Illinois's 102 counties and held 20 townhall meetings throughout the State.

This month, my successor in the House of Representatives, Congressman Bob Dold, and I held the first ever live Facebook townhall meeting and answered questions we received via the social networking site and Twitter.

My office has arranged 340 Capitol and White House tours for approximately 2,800 constituents. We received more than 85,000 phone calls and responded to 66,000 letters and e-mails. We have helped more than 4,000 constituents with casework details before the government, and written more than 200 letters in support of Illinois towns, counties, and organizations for Federal grants. I have convened eight constituent advisory boards and met a total of 18 times. My office helped process 122 passports and assisted 750 veterans and their concerns before the VA.

We have accomplished quite a bit this year. I remain optimistic about the long-term future of our Nation. We can outinnovate and outproduce any nation on the planet if we create an environment that supports full job creation. But there is still a lot of work to do. The Illinois unemployment rate stands at over 10 percent. It seems each day we hear of a new company thinking of leaving our State.

The health care law threatens a further drag on our economy. We face a global sovereign debt crisis in Europe and fears of future credit devaluations for the United States.

U.S. troops continue to pursue enemies of freedom in Afghanistan and Iraq, and Iran continues its effort to develop nuclear weapons. Protests are accelerating in Egypt, and civil unrest in Syria. Piracy remains a concern off the coast of Somalia.

As I have for the past year, I will spend the next 5 years making sure that America remains the best place on Earth for any individual to rise to their full potential, a place where your rights are protected against the government, whose main mission should be to defend us, and to foster higher incomes for our families.

In these battles, I will advance the interests of the State of Illinois as the job engine at the center of the Nation's economy, protector of the Lake Michigan and Mississippi ecosystems, and the special place that sent Abraham Lincoln and hopefully future Lincolns for national leadership when America needs it most.

Of course, my heart and soul will always be with the troops--their care, their mission, and their spirit of defending a place that is the greatest force for human freedom and dignity ever designed.

I am truly grateful for the opportunity to serve my Nation twice--in the Navy and in the Senate. I thank the people of Illinois for this first year in the Senate and for the even bigger things we will do together in the years to come.

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

Mr. President, I wish to speak on the pending amendment. I rise in support of the Kirk-Manchin-Heller and Blunt amendment regarding Iran. What we know with regard to Iran is that they have persecuted 330,000 Baha'is in their country, registered their houses, kicked their kids out of university, made sure that they can do no business with the Iranian Government.

We know Iran is the chief sponsor of the terrorist group Hezbollah that has had a grip on southern Lebanon. We know Iran jumped the Shiite divide to also support the terrorist group called Hamas in the Sunni community.

We know Iran has been a state sponsor of terror as certified by Presidents Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.

We know Iran recently sentenced an Iranian actress to 90 lashes for appearing in an Australian movie without a headdress.

We know Iran recently arrested 70 of its fashion designers, for crimes I cannot even imagine that they would have committed.

But, most importantly, we know the International Atomic Energy Agency has certified that now Iran has enriched uranium far beyond what it needs to run a civilian reactor program; that Iranian military personnel have been involved in acquiring information on the design of nuclear weapons; that the Iranians are working on the details of a warhead for their Shahab-3 missile that fits all of the profiles of a nuclear weapon.

Finally, we know, according to the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, that Iran and its Iranian Revolutionary Guards Quds force established a bomb plot with the Mexican cartel, the Zetas, to blow up a Georgetown restaurant, to kill a number of Americans, even talked about possibly killing Senators, in an effort to assassinate the Saudi Arabian Ambassador to the United States here in Washington, DC.

I think it is clear with this bipartisan amendment that we all recognize we are at a turning point and that we need new sanctions against Iran. Without crippling sanctions, I believe we have then turned the international community on the path toward war, likely between Iran and our allies, in Israel.

This would cause a needless loss of life. It would lead to higher energy prices for the West, an increase in instability in Europe when we can least afford it. Therefore, we need to level crippling sanctions, especially against the Iranian center of gravity, the Central Bank of Iran.

The Central Bank of Iran is the principal funder of the Ahmadinejad regime itself. It is probably the source of funds so substantially provided to terrorist groups by Iran to Hamas and Hezbollah. It is the Central Bank of Iran that is supporting operations in Afghanistan and Iraq against our allies there.

It is the Central Bank of Iran that is the principal underlying financial support for the Iranian nuclear program, and the Central Bank of Iran that is the paymaster for the Iranian Revolutionary Guards force, especially their Quds force. Likely the money that was planned for the Zetas to carry out the bomb plot in Washington, DC, had its origin point with the Central Bank of Iran.

That is why 92 Senators, Republicans and Democrats, despite these partisan times, have joined to say we should level this crippling sanction against the Central Bank of Iran.

I thank the 92 Senators who signed the Schumer-Kirk letter. Indications are that the Obama administration is going to take further actions on the Central Bank of Iran. This amendment lays out the full roadmap for what we should do.

What does the amendment do? It is patterned after the bipartisan amendment adopted under the authorship of Democratic California Congressman Howard Berman, unanimously adopted in the House Foreign Affairs Committee, that says for any business, if you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States of America.

We know that world financial arrangements and especially oil markets are complicated instruments, so under this bipartisan amendment we have a 180-day timeclock to make sure that especially key allies and friends of the United States can unhook from Iranian oil and the financial ties that bind them to Iran. This is particularly important for Turkey, for Sri Lanka, for Italy, and for Greece, who would all use that time under this amendment to unhook from Iran.

In this, I think we are going to have a very willing partner in the Government of Saudi Arabia, recently obviously focused on, because the Iranians tried to kill their Ambassador to the United States. I will be meeting with that Ambassador tomorrow. I think this amendment lays the groundwork not just to work with Israel, not just to work with Saudi Arabia, but our allies, to collapse the Central Bank.

Without action, I think we turn the Middle East and especially the Persian Gulf toward war. That is why we should take every nonmilitary action possible to avoid that conflict, to collapse the Central Bank of Iran.

There are a number of bipartisan heroes in this story--Senator Lieberman, who has been a key actor on these issues and a partner with me on many of these issues; Senator Gillibrand also who has helped out; obviously Senator Schumer, who was the coauthor of the 92-Senator letter on the Central Bank of Iran; Senator Menendez, who also has an outstanding idea on creating an Iranian oil-free zone; and obviously my bipartisan partner on this and best friend in the Senate, Senator Manchin, who joined me on this effort.

Together, we can have a clear statement about what has happened with the IAEA and the Iranian nuclear program, with their record on human rights, with their record on support for terrorism and, most importantly, according to the Attorney General, with a brazen attempt to attack the United States directly with this bomb plot.

I urge Members of this Chamber to vote for this amendment, which is now pending to the National Defense Authorization Act, because it puts a clear statement forward, levels the toughest nonmilitary sanction we had, helps reduce the chance for war or market and oil instability and higher prices, and has such a strong bipartisan pedigree behind it.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, today I am pleased to join with Senator Durbin to introduce a bill in support of New Philadelphia, the first town founded by a freed African-American. This bipartisan legislation would initiate a feasibility study in order to determine whether or not this area should be designated as a unit of the National Park System.

The town of New Philadelphia, Illinois, established in 1836, became the first known town platted and officially registered by an African- American prior to the Civil War. New Philadelphia became a place where European Americans, free-born African-Americans, and formerly enslaved individuals could live together in community during a time of intense racial strife that transpired before, during, and after the Civil War.

Frank McWorter, the founder of New Philadelphia and a former slave himself, saved money from neighboring labor jobs to purchase his own freedom and the freedom of fifteen other family members. Subsequently, Mr. McWorter purchased a sparse plot of land between the Illinois and Mississippi Rivers in Pike County, Illinois to establish the town of New Philadelphia, which also became a station along the Underground Railroad.

In 2005, the town of New Philadelphia is designated a National Historic Place and more recently, it was designated a National Historic Landmark in 2009. Being designated a unit of the National Park System will preserve the historical significance of New Philadelphia and allow its legacy to continue to inspire current and future generations to understand the struggle for freedom and opportunity.

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